#implied bisexuality in media is extremely important to many bisexuals

[bisexualfagdyke]

People only care about character's implied sexualities if they're implied to be lesbian / gay . As soon as a character is implied to be bisexual (e.g. explicitly attracted to / involved with both men and women) suddenly they're "lesbian / gay with comphet" .... what if I killed you with a rock 🩷

[scriptlgbt]

Question

I’m writing fanfic and there’s a female character who is only in a relationship with a man in canon, but there’s a single mention about her having kissed a girl once. Anyway many people are claiming she is canonically bi.

I can certainly see that, though, I don’t see that is necessarily bi. She could have been curious and not afraid to mention a fact, and she never mentioned her actual orientation. It is alright to write this character as straight? There are other canonically non straight characters (all gay/lesbian and bi/pan+) who mention their orientation and/or are in same sex relationships/marriages.

One argument people keep disagreeing with me on and saying she “has” to be bi is basically while it is true many gay/lesbian people start off with opposite sex relationships before they realise they aren’t straight, it’s impossible the other way, that there is no such thing as someone having had same sex experiences but then realise they are straight. I actually don’t think so??

Personally, I also feel like that’s just a throwaway line to ‘hint’ at representation when the writers didn’t want to elaborate and actually write too many bi characters.

Answer

I’m going to answer first as though this is not a fanfiction scenario, because fanfiction has a completely different etiquette around writing characters who have this experience.

It’s totally fine and normal to write characters who have a questioning period, or fluidity, or even an ‘exception’ to their regular experience with their sexuality. There are plenty of people who don’t necessarily identify as bi/pan/polysexual/etc for whatever reason, and do identify as straight or gay/lesbian. In reality, orientation and identity is not as simple for everyone as just 100% of the time, all of their attraction falls into the same gender category as someone with their identity label might be expected to be attracted to. The labels we use for ourselves exist to simplify communication. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. Nuance is normal and okay, and it’s good to write and represent these kinds of experiences. And it matters that we respect the labels people use for themselves.

Knowing that this is fanfiction, however, I want to ask, what do you mean by writing this character as straight? Do you mention specifically that this character is straight? Or are you just writing this character as mostly having been interested in men? Do you mention the past experience of having kissed a girl? How do you write this, and are you dismissive about it, or write that it meant nothing?

And what are you addressing in your notes around the fanfiction, about the reasons why you want to write the character this way? Do you relate to a questioning character, and want this kind of representation for personal reasons? Is this important to your plot in some way?

And importantly, is there other representation of queer characters in your fanfiction? Even in passing, this still matters.

Re: this:

Personally, I also feel like that’s just a throwaway line to ‘hint’ at representation when the writers didn’t want to elaborate and actually write too many bi characters.

I think this is an extremely valid critique! This is slightly less of a thing now, but when Orange Is The New Black first came to Netflix there was a major widespread critique over the refusal to use the word bisexual on screen, and try and insist that the protagonist, Piper, had to be gay or straight. This wasn’t the first or the last major piece of media to have this issue, and using the specific labels does matter, when those labels exist in-context of the canon. When they don’t, there are often equivalents, and sometimes people can also just get away with using the definition of bi or pan etc and that can still be good representation. The key thing that matters, at least to me, is whether people who are a given identity can see themselves represented. If the representation is barely implied in passing, that’s not *nothing* but it isn’t the same as something where this part of us isn’t a footnote.

I don’t have a solid answer on what you should do about this widespread societal pattern of trivializing queer identities within your fanfiction, because this isn’t material I know. But I do think people should be cautious about removing these tiny seeds of representation we have, especially if you don’t have some other representation within the same work.

- mod nat

[creativity-central]

Blog 11: Queer Animation

Hello everyone, and happy Pride Month! Though the month is coming to a close, the amount of content I’ve seen supporting queer identities did not cease or lessen at any moment, something that’s warmed my heart. So, I’ve decided to throw my own hat into the ring - or maybe, my own cap. This isn’t much of an art lesson, but to be supportive of queer identities is to recognize and take queer history into consideration of how one acts, and the history of queerness has influenced art in entertainment, especially as of recent.

With all the recent attention brought towards shows that are canceled or restricted due to queer inclusion, it may intrigue some to look into how entertainment became so restrictive. From the early to mid 1900s, the Hays Code was enacted in order to regulate what was and wasn’t allowed to be depicted in media. Among the several detrimental restrictions this brought out, it prevented the depiction queer people and behavior. On top of the majority opinion on queer identities at the time, this would oppress their expression heavily for a long time.

However, many people would fight against the Hays Code by depicting said banned material, and notable shows from the 1900s like Bugs Bunny and Tom & Jerry that, while not having queer characters outright, would depict fluid gender expression, drag, and implied queer relationships all under the guise of “comedy” in order to be published. It may seem irrelevant now, but this proactivity would be a domino in the trail of pieces that would lead to the progress queer media has reached today. The Hays Code was temporary, of course, and overpowered by the sheer amount of content against it, making its rules less and less meaningful.

In the late 1900s and early 2000s, shows like South Park and the Simpsons would begin to include queer characters outright. While some didn’t draw attention to their identities, some shows included homosexuality as a major theme, such as Queer Duck. It was in the 2010s that animation and entertainment would change the way they represented queer identities drastically, with protagonists and major characters being confirmed queer and in queer relationships on screen. The most notable shows that provided the stepping stone for queer expression include The Legend of Korra and Steven Universe, both with lesbian couples and the latter dedicating an entire episode to their marriage and kiss.

Despite the extreme positivity these shows brought on through their inclusion, it was and still is a prominent opinion that these shows were not confident enough in their expression, that true supporters would indulge more into queer expression in the shows they created. While things like queer baiting and such can be worthy of criticism, it’s important to remember the roots of queer depiction in entertainment and recognize the progress that’s been made as well. After the lesbian wedding in Steven Universe, the episode and show would be censored in various countries and reduce profits, causing Cartoon Network to end the series prematurely and force the crew making the show to close it on a half baked ending. When such a “small” example of queer inclusion is met with that drastic reaction, it means that unfortunately, not everyone can be satisfied just yet with what show creators are able to depict in their stories.

Even more recently, the cancellation of The Owl House after the reveal of a bisexual protagonist in a queer relationship and other queer characters caused it to end before it could even have a proper length third season, ending much sooner than Steven Universe while being much more ambitious with its inclusion. Of course, there are more fortunate examples of queer representation, but this show, alongside Pride Month, are what drove me to dive into the history of queer entertainment. The difference between now and then is great, and the fight for better queer representation shouldn’t be fought while slandering the predecessors to today’s shows.

On the topic of predecessors, while I have retold a bit of queer history in entertainment, this is just the top of the iceberg. Not only that, but talking to queer elders about their history will be way more meaningful than any research you do online, especially when they’ve lived through that history. With the internet, making these connections has never been easier! As Pride Month comes to a close, your support of queers should not. Learning as much as you can about the past from reliable sources and people will give you a much clearer perspective of the queer community and its progress over the years, and may improve how you consume, critique, and create queer media. With that, I’ll be wrapping up this already long enough post. Once again, happy Pride Month, and see you later!

[jonkentdeservesbetter]

Since the ‘debate’ on whether Jon should be bi in S&L is coming back around again, I’m gonna repost a comment I made in reply to someone asking why that would matter.

Okay, I’m gonna try and go point-by-point here.

Firstly, we don’t have any kind of confirmation that JE was uncomfortable with playing bi Jon. What the writers have said is that they hadn’t decided to do that for Jonathan, by the time it was being asked in interviews - and as I understand it, S2 plots and arcs had already been written up and finalized then, so that’s why Jon wasn’t written as bisexual in either season 1 or 2.

Secondly, Jon has never been canonically confirmed as straight, and the writers have also said that it may or may not happen in the future; they haven’t decided. So, his sexuality has not been written yet, as bi or het.

Thirdly, unless you’ve ever understood the instant euphoria that comes from having a character represent you—that, oh my gods, is this really happening? Did I just read/see/hear that right?!, sudden and breathless I’m not alone, feeling of being seen and acknowledged, as even tangentially understood, I cannot in any meaningful sense explain to you the why of why do it? because it’s too…complex, heavy, and moving. What I can say to that, is that it feels incredibly important to those who would be affected by it, in a way that can literally change people’s lives for either better or worse, and stay with them their entire lives, altering the course it could’ve taken—and in the case of positive rep., into something it likely may, and for some, would, never have been without that representation.

It is also, in the case of a bi character, extremely impactful because even within the queer/LGBTQIA+ community, biphobia is alive and cruel and isolating. Having once identified that way myself, I know just how dismissive many can be, both in and outside it.

And, connecting to my next point: fourthly, Sarah is frankly Horrible representation. Her story is literally a stereotype, one of the worst ones: that bi people are cheaters, that you have to fear your partner looking at the other gender(s) they’re attracted to because bi people can’t be faithful, and so on. It’s horrifically disrespectful for the writers to even imply she’s representation, especially when they either didn’t do any research, or purposely chose to make her a terrible stereotype that actively harms bi folx, via not only how others will see her character (especially if they’re swayed by her portrayal, or have already been swayed by biphobic rhetoric and Sarah’s being a cheater cements that), but how bi people themselves may see their own identity. Especially if they have IRL people around them who are biphobic. When you’re someone with an identity that can be hated, portrayed or discussed as wrong, or bad or immoral, media representation can have a profoundly crushing affect on you if it’s negative. Even more so if it’s the only media of that identity you take in, or allow yourself to take in (because the experience was so awful you never try again). We are killed for being queer, we’re shamed, and worse. Positive representations, fictional or not, have literally saved people’s lives. Can teach queer folx to love themselves. It’s a really big deal.

Deep inhale okay that was a lot of words. Exhale.

Onto the next point: why make Jon bi if he isn’t gonna be Superboy? Look, queer superheroes are amazing, but a character doesn’t need superpowers or a cape to make an incredible change in someone’s life. Jon being bi is important regardless of if he’s Superboy or Superman or just Jonathan Kent: a boy doing his best.

And, it does say a lot on it’s own, whether S&L’s only bi rep.—not to mention their only queer rep.—in the show, particularly a Superman story, is a negative stereotype about cheaters. It’s all the worse for the fact her being bisexual was introduced through her not only cheating and then getting upset with her boyfriend for being upset about it (and don’t get me started on how the narrative handled the message of cheating, FFS…), but by cheating because she’s bi. Specifically because she’s also attracted to girls. She wouldn’t have kissed someone at camp if she wasn’t, and she clearly wasn’t interested in anyone else in Smallville, so, again: it was solely her being bi.

That’s so bad.

At this point, having another, well-handled, bi—not just LGBT, bi—character is really needed for this show, regardless if it’s Jon. Otherwise, it’s always gonna be the Superman and Lois Lane show that had it’s one (1) bi character as a cheater who was clearly initially framed as being In The Right. Like, the show is never gonna make up for how it butchered Lois’ agency in S2, but this is something that can be changed because the mistake is still ongoing.

Anyway, this is long as hell, so I’ll stop here.

[ahhhsami]

I really like what you said the other day in response to someone who mistakenly thought Asami was white. I do have some comments on another part of her identity you mentioned in that response. Hear me out, but I don't think that it is fair to say Asami is not a lesbian. She could be. She could also be bi or pan.

Lots of lesbians date men before coming out. This is due to compulsory heterosexuality or comphet which basically means societal pressures makes women feel compelled to be attracted to men. Yes, the society in Avatar is different. However, in Turf Wars it is explained that homophobia does exist in this world, so it would make sense that people would be closetted or take longer to figure things out. In the comic, Asami is also nervous to tell Korra's parents about their relationship because of this homophobia. Kya even explains that the fire nation is the most homophobic of the nations. The fire nation helped form Republic City and Asami is ethnically fire nation. Therefore, this influence would definitely be present in her life which could make her feel compelled to date men.

I'm not saying that Korra or Asami are definitely lesbians, but they could be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's never explicitly stated if they are lesbians or bisexuals in Avatar or any real world official media. Therefore, they could be either of them. If a lesbian sees some of themselves in the characters and projects their identity a little bit, there is nothing wrong with that. If a bisexual sees some of themselves in the characters and projects their identity a little bit, there is nothing wrong with that. I don't think it's erasure to say that they could be either, but it is erasure to say they can't be one of them.

I'm a transgender lesbian. I strongly identity with most of Korra's traits. We have very similar, flaws and strengths. She feels like the only person I have ever identified with in media. One of the many ways I relate to Korra is her roamances. One time I dated one of my best friends, a straight man. At first I was head over heels and extremely excited. I saw a future with us. After several months I kept saying stuff like, "This part of our relationship would be better if I was with a woman," and stuff like that. Just like Korra in season 2, I started getting angry at him very easily, sometimes over nothing. We love board games, but couldn't finish one without someone getting pissy. I eventually realized that I couldn't do this anymore and I told him I made a mistake and that I'm not attracted to men. We are still very good friends and if I could be attracted to men, he would be the perfect boyfriend for me. Sometimes I think Korra is a lesbian like me. Sometimes, I think she's bi and just Makko wasn't a good fit. Either way is a perfectly fine way to think about it. No matter what, she is a badass sapphic and I'm glad we can all be inspired by her in some way.

Hey first off, I want to thank you for sending this and being really awesome about the way you've approached this. You don't always see it on tumblr, so it's much appreciated!

There's a lot you've said, so instead of responding completely line for line, I'm just going to write my complete opinion about this and hopefully it makes sense.

Bryke had made two official statements after the airing of the show, none that overtly say that they are bisexual, but it is heavily implied, especially in Bryan's statement which is the first post linked (x)(x). As quoted by Bryan, "Despite what you might have heard, bisexual people are real!"

Comphet is a legitimate issue in the world today, but I personally never got that feeling from Korra or Asami (through the series or comics). I believed that their relationships with Mako were genuine and it just didn't work out (all of them being the issue, not just Mako, lol). But again, that is my own personal viewpoint.

Erasure is the thing that I want to tackle most and hopefully I can do that cohesively and in an understandable way. The idea of labeling and identities on a personal standpoint is fluid and is on a spectrum. As a person, you don't need to label yourself or you can label yourself if you'd like, you can be as you are and that's okay. Personally, I identify as Queer because Bisexual does fit me, but just not completely in the way I'd like it to. Pan doesn't fit quite right, neither does Lesbian. So, thus I label myself as Queer leaning towards Bisexual tendencies.

But this idea and concept of labeling is very different when it comes to media and it's not focused on a real life person and their experiences. Labeling in media is important and that is because of positive representation in society. Often times, bisexual characters are portrayed in negative ways, so when there is positive portrayal and representation, this is important to the nth degree. Korra and Asami also weren't just side characters, they were main characters. So to have a clearly positive portrayal of bisexual characters on a mainstream show, that was huge. On top of this, this was a children's show, so to be a little kid or even someone older, finally seeing someone that is like you would be a significant moment in your life. This is honestly another reason why I love Korrasami so much, because of my own struggles with identity.

This all can be countered with the idea that they're lesbians and wouldn't that be good representation too? Yes, it would be, but it also wouldn't be as significant when taking into account all of TV/Film media.

If we breakdown and take in all of the positive representation of Lesbians vs Bisexuals, it would be more significant for them to be bisexual in a time where there was little to no good bisexual representation. In 2013 '64.7 percent of inclusive films included gay male characters. 23.5 percent included lesbian characters, and 17.7 percent contained bisexual characters.' Presently, on cable TV 34% of regular and recurring LGBTQ characters were lesbian and 18% of regular and recurring LGBTQ characters were bisexual. On streaming, lesbian representation makes up 28% and bisexual representation makes up 19%. These numbers don't even break down if it's positive representation either! So again, although real life sexuality is fluid or can be on a spectrum, media labeling is more rigid and representative of a specific area. Making it extremely significant and influential when there is a character labeled a specific way, bisexual in this case.

To this day, people still deny that bisexual people exist. Often times the debate is whether a person is gay or straight, but nothing more. So erasure is a big deal and claiming that Korra or Asami are lesbians can be detrimental in ways that people may not have thought of at first. People can obviously identify with a character and feel attachment to them, but there is no reason to not feel that attachment if their sexual orientation may differ from your own.

[woman-loving]

I’ve been reading some articles about lesbian identities in Indonesia, from the late 80s to the 00s, and wanted to share some quotes that highlighted a couple trends that I’ve also noticed in reading about butch/femme communities in other countries.

1) There are different expectations about sexual distinctiveness and marriage to men are attached to butch and femme identities. There is a greater expectation that femmes will marry men, and femmes more often do marry men, though some butches do as well. Marriages to men seem to be for convenience or in name only, and women may continue to have female lovers.

2) Distinctions are made between real/pure/positive lesbians (butches) and other lesbians (femmes) who are “potentially normal.” This shows the flexibility of lesbian identity, where they can be gradations and contradictions in what it means to be a lesbian (e.g. a woman being a lesbian but not a “real lesbian"). The category has cores and peripheries, rather than everyone being equally lesbian or else completely outside of it.

3) There are disagreements between members, which cross butch/femme lines, about the meanings of these identities and whose lesbianism or community involvement should be taken seriously. The first passage describes femmes as engaging in a “more active appropriation of lesbianism as a core element of their subjectivity.” The boundaries of lesbianism can potentially expand or contract as people struggle to define it.

4) People don’t always meet the community expectations attached to their identity.

I think these passages help complicate the picture of what lesbian identities can look like, and some of these same tensions and debates are common features of lesbian identity in many different cultures. I also think these issues--the (differential) weight given to relationships with men, the notion of positive versus negative lesbians, and the active appropriation of lesbianism by peripheral members--are relevant to bisexual interest, since these questions also shape bi women’s engagement in lesbianism/lesbian communities. (And we can say that without claiming that any particular women in these narratives are “really bisexual.”)

Anyway, without further ado... (this first one picks up right in the middle of a passage because I couldn’t get the previous page on the google preview :T)

From “Desiring Bodies or Defiant Cultures: Butch-Femme Lesbians in Jakarta and Lima,” by Saskia E. Wieringa, in Female Desires: Same-Sex Relations and Transgender Practices Across Cultures, eds. Evelyn Blackwood and Saskia E. Wieringa, 1999:

“[...]negative lesbians. We are positive lesbians. We are pure, 100% lesbian. With them you can never know. Before you know it, they are seeing a man again, and we are given the good-bye.”

Father Abraham, who had entered during her last words, took over. “Let me explain. … Take Koes. Again and again her girlfriends leave her. Soon she’ll be old and lonely. Who will help her then? For these girls it is just an adventure, while for butches like Koes it is their whole life.”“Yes, well, Abraham, … my experience is limited, of course, but it seems to me that the femmes flee the same problems that make life so hard for the butches. So they’d rather support each other.”

“In any case,” Sigit added, ‘they have become active now, that’s why they’re here, isn’t that so?” And she looked questioningly at the three dolls behind the typing machine, Roekmi and my neighbour. The most brazen femme had been nodding in a mocking manner while Sigit and I were talking.

“So we’re only supposed to be wives? We’re not suited for something serious, are we? Maybe we should set up a wives’ organization, Dharma Wanita,[23] the Dharma Wanita PERLESIN? Just like all those other organizations of the wives of civil servants and lawyers?” …

“Come on, Ari,” Sigit insisted, “why don’t you just ask them? You could at least ask them whether they want to join?” Ari found it extremely hard. Helplessly she looked at the other butches.

“Do you really mean that i should ask whether our wives would like to join / our / organization?” One of the butches nodded.

“Ok, fine.” She directed herself to the dolls.

“Well, what do you want? Do you want to join us? But in that case you shouldn’t just say yes, then you should also be involved with your whole heart.”

“You never asked that of the others,” the brazen femme pointed out, “but yes, I will definitely dedicate myself to the organization.” Roekmi and the two femmes at her side also nodded. (Wieringa 1987:89-91)

The above example is indicative of the social marginalization of the b/f community. it also captures in it one of its moments of transformation. The defiance of the femmes of the code that prescribes the division of butches and femmes into “positive” and “negative” lesbians respectively indicates a more active appropriation of lesbianism as a core element of their subjectivity. At the same time it illustrates the hegemony of the dominant heterosexual culture with its gendered principles of organization.

Yet, however much the butches conformed to male gender behavior they didn’t define themselves as male; their relation to their bodies was rather ambiguous. at times they defined themselves as a third sex, which is nonfemale[…]. [...] [Butches’] call for organization was not linked to a feminist protest against rigid gender norms. Rather they felt that nature had played a trick on them and they they had to devise ways to confront the dangers to which this situation gave rise. Jakarta’s b/f lesbians when I met them in the early eighties were not in the least interested in feminism. In fact, the butches among them were more concerned with the case of a friend of them who was undergoing a sex change operation. They clearly considered it an option, but none of them decided to follow this example. When I asked them why, all of them mentioned the health risks involved and the costs. None of them stated that they rather preferred their own bodies. Their bodies, although the source of sexual pleasure and as such the object of constant attention, didn’t make it any too easy for them to get the satisfaction they sought or, at least, to attract the partners they desired.

From "Let Them Take Ecstasy: Class and Jakarta Lesbians," by Alison J. Murray, in Female Desires: Same-Sex Relations and Transgender Practices Across Cultures, eds. Evelyn Blackwood and Saskia E. Wieringa, 1999:

Covert lesbian activities are thus an adaptation to the ideological context, where the distinction between hidden and exposed sexual behavior allows for fluidity in sexual relations (“everyone could be said to be bisexual” according to Oetomo 1995) as long as the primary presentation is heterosexual/monogamous. It is not lesbian activity that has been imported from the West, but the word lesbi used to label the Western concept of individual identity based on a fixed sexuality. I have not found that Indonesian women like to use the label to describe themselves, since it is connected to unpleasant stereotypes and the pathological view of deviance derived from Freudian psychology (cf Foucault 1978).

The concept of butch-femme also has a different meaning in Indonesia from the current Western use which implies a subversion of norms and playful use of roles and styles (cf Nestle 1992). In Indonesia (and other parts of Southeast Asia, such as the Philippines, Thailand’s tom-and-dee: Chetame 1995) the roles are quite strictly, or restrictively, defined and are related to popular, pseudo-psychological explanations of the “real” lesbian. In the simple terms of popular magazines, the butch (sentul) is more than 50% lesbian, or incurably lesbi, while the femme (kantil) is less than 50% lesbian, or potentially normal. Blackwood’s (1994) description of her secretive relationship with a butch-identified woman in Sumatra brings up some cross-cultural differences and difficulties that they experienced and could not speak about publicly. The Sumatran woman adopted masculine signifies and would not be touched sexually herself; she wanted to be called “pa” by Blackwood, who she expected to behave as a “good wife.” Meanwhile, Blackwood’s own beliefs, as well as her higher status due to class and ethnicity, made it hard to take on the passive female role.

I want to emphasize here that behavior needs to be conceptually separated from identity, as both are contextually specific and constrained by opportunity. It is common for young women socialized into a rigid heterosexual regime, in Asia or the West, to experience their sexual feelings in terms of gender confusion: “If I am attracted to women, then I must be a man trapped in a woman’s body.” Women are not socialized to seek out a sexual partner (of any kind), or to be sexual at all, so an internal “feeling” may never be expressed unless there are role models or opportunities available. If the butch-femme stereotype, as presented in the Indonesian popular media, is the only image of lesbians available outside the metropolis (e.g., in Sumatra), then this may affect how women express their feelings. However, urban lower-class lesbians engage in a range of styles and practices: some use butch style consciously to earn peer respect, while others reject the butch as out-dated. The stereotype of all lower-class lesbians whether following butch-femme roles or conforming to one subcultural pattern is far from the case and reflects the media and elite’s lack of real knowledge about street life. […]

The imagery of sickness creates powerful stigmatization and internalized homophobia: women may refer to themselves as sakit (sick). An ex-lover of mine in Jakarta is quite happy to state a preference for women while at the same time expressing disgust at the word lesbi and at the sight of a butch dyke; however, I have generally found that the stigma around lesbian labels and symbols is not translated into discrimination against individuals based on their sexual activities. I have been surprised to discover how many women in Jakarta will either admit to having sex with women or to being interested in it, but again, this is only rarely accompanied by an open lesbian (or bisexual) identity. I have found it hard to avoid the word “lesbian” to refer to female-to-female sexual relations, but it should not be taken to imply a permanent self-identity. It is very important to try and understand the social contexts of behavior, in order to avoid drawing conclusions based on inappropriate Western notions of lesbian identity, community, or “queer” culture.

From “Beyond the ‘Closet’: The Voices of Lesbian Women in Yogyakarta,” by Tracy L Wright Webster, 2004:

Most importantly a supportive community group of lesbian, bisexual and transgender women is essential, given that these sexualities are thrust together in Sektor 15. Potentially, a group comprised of women from each of these categories, that is lesbian, bisexual or transgender, may prove problematic to say the least, given that the needs and issues of each group are different. Clearly the informal communities already in existence in Yogya are indicators of this. Any formal or organized groupings would certainly benefit by modeling on current, though informal organisations. In the lesbian network, transgendered women (those who wish to become men or who consider themselves male) are not affiliated, however many ‘femme’ identified women who have been and intend to be involved in heterosexual relationships in the future, are among the group in partnership with their ‘butch’ pacar (Indo: girlfriend/boyfiend/lover).

Organisations of women questioning sexuality have existed in Yogya in the past. A butch identified respondent said she was involved in the formation of a lesbian, bisexual and transgender network in collaboration with another Indonesian woman, who also identified as butch, 20 years her senior. The group was called Opo (Javanese:what) or Opo We (Jav:whatever), the name highlighting that any issue could be discussed or entered into within the group. Members were an amalgam of both of the women’s friends and acquaintances. The underlying philosophy of the group was that “regardless of a woman’s life experience, marriage, children…it is her basic human right to live as a lesbian if she has the sexual inclination”. The elder founding member of this group, now 46, married a man and had a child. She now lives with her husband (in name only), child and female partner in the same home. Although this arrangement according to the interviewee “is rare… because the husband is there, she is spared the questions from the neighbours”. Here I must add that it is common in Java for lesbians to marry to fulfill their social role as mothers, and then to separate from their husbands to live their lives in partnership with a woman. This trend however is more common among the ‘femme’ group.

From "(Re)articulations: gender and same-sex subjectivities in Yogyakarta, Indonesia," by Tracy Wright Webster, in Intersections: Gender and Sexuality in Asia and the Pacific, Issue 18, Oct 2008:

Lesbi subjectivities Since gender, for the most part, determines sexuality in Java, sexuality and gender cannot be analysed as discrete categories.[64] For all of the self-identified butchi participants, lesbi was the term used to describe their sexuality. This is contrary to the findings of two key researchers of female same-sex sexuality in Indonesia. Alison Murray's research in Jakarta in the 1980s suggests that females of same-sex attraction did not like the term 'lesbian'[65] due to its connection with 'unpleasant stereotypes' and deviant pathologies.[66] In 1995, Gayatri found that media representations depicting lesbi as males trapped in female bodies encouraged same-sex attracted women to seek new, contemporary descriptors.[67] The participants in this research, however, embraced the term lesbi as an all-encompassing descriptor of female same-sex attraction and as Boellstorff has noted in 2000, Indonesian lesbi tend to see themselves as part of a wider international lesbian network.[68]

The term lesbi has been used in Indonesia since the 1980s, although not commonly or consistently. Lines, les, lesbian, lesbo, lesbong and L, among others, are also used. Female same-sex/lesbi subjectivities in Yogya are not strongly associated with political motivations and the subversion of heteropatriarchy as they were among the Western lesbian feminists of the 1960s. By the time most of the participants in this research were born, the term lesbi had already become infused in Indonesian discourses of sexuality among the urban elite (though with negative connotations in most cases), and has since become commonly used both by females of same-sex attraction to describe themselves, and by others. Most learnt from peers at school and through reading Indonesian magazines.

However, public use of the term lesbi and expression of lesbi subjectivity has its risks. Murray's research on middle to upper class lesbians suggests that females identifying as lesbi have more to lose than lower class lesbi in terms of social position and the power invested in that class positioning. This is particularly in relation to their position in the family.[69] Conversely, her work also shows that lower class lesbi 'have the freedom to play without closing off their options.'[70] As Aji suggests, young females, particularly of the priyayi class may not be in a position to resist the social stigma attached to lesbianism and the possible consequences of rejection or abuse. Yusi faced this reality despite the fact that s/he had not declared herself lesbi. Hir gendered subjectivity meant that s/he did not conform to stereotypical feminine ideals and desires.

With so much at stake, many lesbi remain invisible. Heteronormative and feminine gendered expectations for females in part explain why lesbians may indeed be the 'least known population group in Indonesia.'[71] Collusion in invisibility can be seen here as a protective strategy. The lesbi community or keluarga (family) is what Murray refers to as a 'strategic community' of the lesbian subculture.[72] The strategic nature of the community lies in its sense of protection: the community provides a safe haven for disclosure. Invisibility, however, also arises through the factors I mentioned earlier: the normative feminine representations of femme, their tendency to express lesbi subjectivity only while in partnership with a butchi, and their tendency to marry. Invisibility, as a form of discretion, however, may also be chosen.

Gender complementary butchi/femme subjectivities [...] Due to the apparently fixed nature of butchi identities and subjectivities and their reluctance to sleep with males, they are seen as 'true lesbians,'[79] lesbian sejati, an image perpetuated through the media.[80] Similar to the butchi/femme communities in Jakarta, in Yogya, butchi are identified by their strict codes of dress and behaviour which include short hair, sometimes slicked back with gel, collared button up shirts and trousers bought in menswear stores, large-faced watches and bold rings. Butchi characteristically walk with a swagger and smoke in public places. In her research in the 1980s, Wieringa noticed that within lesbi communities in Jakarta the strict 'surveillance and socialisation 'may have contributed to the fixed nature of butchi identities.[81] In Yogya, this is particularly evident in the socialisation of younger lesbi by senior lesbi (a theme I explore elsewhere in my current research).

The participants held individual perspectives on butchness. Aji's butchness is premised on hir masculine gender subjectivity and desire for a partner of complementary gender. Yusi expresses hir butchness differently and relates it to dominance in the relationship and in sex play. The participants who told of the sexual roles within the relationship emphasised their active butchi roles during sex. As Wieringa suggests, this does not necessarily imply femme passivity as femme 'stress their erotic power over their butches.'[82] It does, however, indicate one way in which the butchi I interviewed articulate their sexual agency.

Femme subjectivities, on the other hand, are generally conceived of as transient. As many of the interviews illustrate, femme are expected by their butchi partners to marry and have children: butchi see them as bisexual. In public, and indeed if they marry, they are seen as heterosexual, though their heterosexual practice may not be exclusive. In the 1980s, Wieringa observed that femme 'dressed in an exaggerated fashion, in dresses with ribbons and frills...always wore make up and high heels.'[83] In the new millennium, the femme I met were also fashion savvy though not in an exaggerated sense. Generally they wore hip-hugging, breast-accentuating tight gear, had long hair and wore lipstick and low-heeled pumps. Their feminine representations were stereotypical: it was through association with butchi with in the lesbi community that femme subjectivities become visible.

[aster-ion]

Sylvie x Loki Might Not Happen and Here’s Why

***SPOILERS FOR LOKI TV SHOW***

1.  They are basically siblings

Even though they have different personalities, backstories, and physical appearances, that doesn't change the fact that they are the genetic equivalent of siblings. No matter what Timeline you're looking at, both Sylvie and Loki are the offspring of Laufey and whoever he had children with. We know this because they are Variants of the exact same person, meaning that if either of them were born to someone other than Laufey, they would have been pruned as a baby. And since they weren't, that means they must be just as genetically similar as siblings are.

Because of this, the idea of Sylvie and Loki engaging in any kind of romantic or sexual relationship is extremely disturbing to a lot of fans. It's too big an oversight to brush past, especially when the show has continued to remind us over and over that they are, in fact, both Lokis. Maybe if them being the same person wasn't such a major plot point, it would be easier to ignore the facts, but it is, and that means that Marvel is basically pushing either an incest or selfcest (depending on how you look at it) type relationship. And that’s extremely risque for a corporation as large as Marvel, especially with a character as beloved by fans as Loki. 

2.  It is terrible LGBTQ+ representation

And before anyone says anything, no, it is not because Sylvie is portrayed as female and Loki as male. I've seen a lot of Sylvie x Loki shippers say that the reason people don't like the couple is due to it being one between a male and female, but that's not true. Loki and Sylvie were both confirmed to be bisexual, meaning that they can engage in a relationship with anyone of any gender. It would be completely valid for either of them to pursue romance with someone of a different sex and still be bisexual. No one is arguing against that, and if they are, I definitely do not agree with them.

However, the problem comes in when you take into account Marvel and Disney's (who owns Marvel) long history of queerbaiting. There have been countless times that Disney advertises their "first gay character!" only for it to be a single line of dialogue or a brief shot. Marvel in particular has used the popularity of certain LGBTQ+ ships and headcanons in their fanbase to generate media popularity that they don't actually follow through with in their movies/shows. So when Loki was confirmed to be both genderfluid and bisexual in Episode Three, lots of people felt like they were finally getting a win for representation. 

But those people, myself included, appear to have been let down again. The first two official queer characters had so much potential to go off and be with anyone they wanted, but instead, the show has set them up to be in a romance with each other. Now, this wouldn't be problematic on it's own, but when you take into consideration the questionable nature of their romance from Point One as well as the fact that the show has explicitly referred to it as "twisted," it raises the question of whether or not this is actually good representation. Because the fact is, in one episode the writers went “look, it’s two queer people!” and in the next, they said “their relationship is disgusting and demented.” Marvel’s first bisexual characters being borderline incestuous/selfcestuous does not sit well with me at all.

All of this is made even more confusing when you take into account the background of the Loki crew, most notably, the director Kate Herron. She also directed the Netflix series Sex Education, which has quite a bit of very well done representation of all kinds. So how is she managing to fail so badly on this project? It makes me wonder whether she truly is just losing her touch or if this is all a misdirection. Personally, I'm hoping for the latter.

3.  It does not send the "self love" message people seem to think it does

The writers, director, and cast of Loki have said multiple times that the relationship between Sylvie and Loki is meant to act as a metaphor for self love. And in a way, that makes a lot of sense. Despite creating different identities for themselves over time, they are still ultimately the same person and therefore share a special bond because of it. And there's a lot of potential that can be done with that concept.

Loki is an extremely complex and intriguing character. He has experienced a lot of trauma in his past that has shaped him into the person he is today. And that person is clearly very broken. He has never given away or received any kind of love, with the exception of his mother and possibly his brother, Thor. Other than that, he's had no healthy friendships, romances, or perception of himself. It makes sense for him to be confused by this pull he feels towards Sylvie, who is both alarmingly alike and vastly different from himself.

Something this series does exceptionally well is breaking Loki out of his comfort zone. He is finally forced to see himself from other people's perspectives. It started with the file Mobius showed him in the first episode. Loki was able to view his actions apart from himself, and was hit with the realisation that he had been hurting people, and he didn't like that. 

Loki is also confronted by the existence of the Time Keepers and the TVA, who describe him as an antagonist and nothing more. To them, his role is to make those around him look better, even if that means he repeatedly gets the short end of the stick. Mobius mentions that he disagrees with this and that Loki "can be whoever and whatever he wants, even someone good," adding another layer of depth as to who Loki could be in the future of the series. 

Another huge moment for Loki's character development is while in the Time Loop Prison with Sif. Though he starts out annoyed with the situation and recalls not feeling apologetic when he cut off Sif's hair, the longer he is in the loop, the more he changes. Loki admits things to himself that we have never seen him say aloud, such as the fact that he is a narcissist that craves attention. Sif telling Loki over and over that he deserves to be alone makes Loki question whether or not he believes that to be true, allowing him an introspective moment where he really has to think about who he is. 

Now with all of that being said, I'd like to tie in why this is important to the writing of Loki and Sylvie. They act as a mirror to one another, representing both the flaws and strengths of "what makes a Loki a Loki." For once, Loki gets an honest, unbiased look at himself without layers of expectations or self doubt. On Lamentis, he calls Sylvie "amazing" and praises her for all her accomplishments. That's a huge moment for him because it shows that despite also finding her irritating, he can look past those traits and see someone worth being a hero underneath. And through that realisation, he begins to understand that he can also grow to love himself. That kind of character development for Loki is incredible to watch, and it's the kind of character development I want to see from this series. Unfortunately, them possibly engaging in a romantic relationship will ruin it.

Whenever I'm feeling insecure about myself and my abilities, the solution has never been to look at who I am through a romantic lens. Self love is an entirely different type of love from romantic love, so if the series tries to push this relationship as a romance, it will fail to truly represent the arc that they are trying to show.

4.  Nobody likes it 

This one's a little on the nose, but it's true. Almost no one likes this ship, and more than that, most people actively hate it. Yes, there is a small minority that like Loki and Sylvie together, but there is an overwhelmingly larger group that is disgusted and angry by the fact that the show paired them up.

After Episode 4 aired, I ranted for about an hour and a half with a friend about how much we didn't want them together. My aunt whom I have never texted reached out to me to say that she hated their relationship. My homophobic neighbour came over and told me that she would prefer any other romance to this. Friends that I haven't talked to much since school let out for summer have all agreed that they collectively dislike Loki x Sylvie. This ship has brought people together purely because everyone hates it more than they hate each other.

There is no denying that the general feedback for Loki and Sylvie being a couple has been negative, even if you support them getting together for some reason. So if there are so many people out there who don't like it, I'm confused as to how it would be approved by a team of professionals.

5.  The contradicting information we have gotten so far

Before the release of Episode Four, Kate Herron said that the relationship between Loki and Sylvie was “not necessarily romantic.” During the interview, she continued to refer to them as friends and people who found solace and trust in each other.

However, after Episode Four, the head writer, Michael Waldron, and other members of the crew spoke up about Sylvie and Loki. They said things like “it just felt right that that would be Loki’s first real love story” and “these are two beings of pure chaos that are the same person falling in love with one another.” These kinds of comments very heavily imply something romantic, directly contradicting what Kate Herron said. Even Tom Hiddleston, the actor for Loki, has assessed the situation, highlighting the differing viewpoints. He’s also said before that the end of Episode Four ultimately has Loki getting in his own way. 

Now, this could all just be a misdirection on either side to build suspense for the show, but as of right now, it is entirely unclear who is telling the truth. Though it is more likely that the statements made by Michael Waldron are more accurate (as he is the writer), there is still a slight possibility that Loki x Sylvie won’t happen. I’ll link the articles I’ve found on this topic below so you can read them and decide for yourself. 

Kate Herron Statement - https://www.cbr.com/loki-sylvie-relationship-not-romantic/ 

Michael Waldron Statement - https://www.marvel.com/articles/tv-shows/loki-sylvie-in-love 

Tom Hiddleston Statement - https://thedirect.com/article/loki-tom-hiddleston-sylvie-romance 

6.  It is still salvageable

The odds are not in our favour, I’m afraid. It is highly probable that the show will put Loki and Sylvie in a romantic relationship with each other. Yet there is still a way to salvage it and turn their bond into something incredibly satisfying. Like I mentioned in Point Three, the relationship between Loki and Sylvie has the potential to be incredibly empowering and provide both characters some much-needed growth. And I believe that while unlikely, it can still do that. 

The only mention of them being romantically interested in each other came from Mobius, who at the time was angry, betrayed, and doing anything he could to get Loki to talk. Then, at the end of the episode, right before Loki is about to confess something important to Sylvie, he is pruned. This results in no explicit confirmation from either Loki or Sylvie that they are in love with each other. The audience is left not knowing whether Mobius was correct in his speculations, and honestly, I don’t think Loki knows either.

Loki is no expert on love, as I explained earlier. It is entirely possible that he doesn’t grasp how he feels about Sylvie and defaults to romance because of what Mobius said. There is undoubtedly some sort of deep bond forming between them, and I would love to see that being explored in the next two episodes. I would love to watch Loki’s journey of realising that he doesn’t want anything romantic with Sylvie, and was simply confused by the new things he was feeling towards her. Loki even says “this is new for me” when talking to Sylvie at the end of Episode Four. Him momentarily believing that he wants to be a couple with her then shifting into them becoming friends who help each other grow is still a reality that could happen. And ultimately, I think that would benefit them both as characters as well as strengthen the overall message of the show.

In a show about self love, acceptance of yourself, and figuring out who you want to be, Loki very much needs people who support him. He has that in Mobius already, and now he’s beginning to have it in Sylvie as well. I just hope that it is done in a way that resonates with the audience and subverts expectations, which just cannot be done through some twisted romantic relationship. I’ve spoken to others watching the show and seen people talking online, and everyone seems to agree that Loki and Sylvie work much better as platonic soulmates or found family than a couple. 

Of course, my hopes aren’t that high up. While I’d love for this to happen, I’ve been let down by Marvel before and wouldn’t be surprised if they went for the easy route of pairing characters up rather than dealing with the emotions correctly. Still, I have hope for this series. Everything else about it is wonderful and perfect in every way. It has the potential to become a masterpiece and easily the best thing that Marvel has ever done. However, this romance would ruin it for me and so many others. We already feel incredibly disappointed by Loki x Sylvie being suggested, so I can’t even begin to fathom how people will react if the show makes it canon. I’m begging Marvel to please do better than this. They have a wonderful story to tell and a wonderful team to do it, and I hope from the bottom of my heart that they don’t throw that away. 

[queermediastudies]

Carol, Romance and Lack of Inclusion

A US trailer for the film.

Carol, a film based on the book The Price of Salt by Patricia Highsmith, starring Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett, came out in 2015 and attained great critical success. Nominated for 6 Oscars, 5 golden Globes, and 9 BAFTA film awards. It also won two awards in the Cannes film festival, best actress (Rooney Mara), and the Queer Palm award, due to its being “The first time a love story between two women was treated with the respect and significance of any other mainstream cinematic romance.” (IMDB). It is, refreshingly, explicitly queer, avoiding much of the LGBTQ+ audience’s need to undertake a “queer reading” (Doty, 1993) of yet another heterosexual film. The storyline, acting and production of this film are all extremely well done; however, it has several problematic factors such as its lack of LGBTQ+ cast members in its lead roles, lack of racially diverse casting, and marketing that hid the film’s queer storyline.

The movie tells the love story of two women living in the 1950s. Therese, played by Rooney Mara, is a department store clerk in New York City. While at work, she runs into a customer, Carol, played by Cate Blanchett, with whom she has an unexpected connection. The two women gradually begin a romantic relationship. Carol’s soon to be ex-husband, Harge (played by Kyle Chandler), complicates things by attempting to stop her contact with their daughter due to the “immorality” of her relationship with Therese. Unable to see her daughter, Carol takes Therese on a road trip, where they fall deeper in love. On their road trip, they discover that Harge has hired someone to follow them and collect evidence of Carol’s “immoral behavior.” After Harge’s discovery, Carol leaves Therese a letter with her best friend Abby (Played by Sarah Paulson) in which she ends their relationship. Heartbroken, Therese returns to New York  and begins a new chapter of her life in which she embraces her lesbianism. After deciding that living a life free from Harge’s shaming of her sexuality is more important to her than having full custody of her daughter, Carol leaves him for good and calls Therese. The movie ends with their long, lingering eye contact across a restaurant, implying that they end up together.

A silly (but informative) video that summarizes and comments on the movie.

This movie tells a beautiful, if complicated, love story between two women set in the 1950s. It does not fall for many of the storyline pitfalls that many other lesbian films do, such as an unhappy ending due to homophobia, or sex or love scenes directed for the male gaze. In fact, the film was intentionally directed as if seen through the eyes of 1950s underground female photographers.

A Vanity Fair interview with Cate Blanchett in which she discusses the film’s directing style.

It is “unabashedly romantic” (Blanchett, 2016) and urges the audience to fall in love with Carol along with Therese. It also does not follow a rule of “gay and lesbian representation: no sexual interaction.” (Dow, 2001), but includes it in such a way that it contributes to the story without adding gratuity or oversexualization of either character. There is a great deal complexity to the two characters, and their love story is not the only thing happening in the film, which feels refreshing because “mainstream Hollywood films that deal with actual gay and lesbian lives and issues are extremely rare.” (Bernshoff and Griffin, 2004). They are not one-dimensional characters, they face outside pressures, such as Therese learning what she wants, not only in a partner, but in her professional life as she works to become a professional photographer. Carol’s struggle to separate from her husband is one of her character’s key driving factors, and it is complicated greatly by her social standing.

Therese’s character is relatively lower class, she works in a department store and her apartment is small and dingy. Carol on the other hand is an older, unhappily married woman whose family (or at least her husband’s family) is extremely well off. The social structures we see surrounding the two women are very different, and we see how they affect the two women in different ways. Although she works hard to make it in the world, Therese’s social circles are much more accepting of her queer identity, and it is almost as if there is nothing to lose for her. However, for Carol there is everything to lose. Her daughter, Rindy, is the light of her life, but when she leaves Harge for a woman, he punishes her by forcing her to keep away from their daughter. Throughout the movie we see Harge’s vicious and determined homophobia and its direct negative effects on Carol, but unlike in other films, it does not destroy her will to love who she wants.

Despite the movie’s overall beautiful representation of a romantic relationship, there are several issues with the film. The book it is based off of was written by a Queer woman and the storyline of the film is blatantly queer, however neither of the starring Actresses in the movie are queer. This is a missed opportunity in terms of the film’s casting, particularly for the film’s queer audience and for the queer actresses who likely auditioned and were denied one of their few opportunities to play a queer character in a mainstream movie. Both Blanchett and Mara are fantastic actresses, however, this does not take away the fact that queer women could have been cast into the film’s starring roles. There were queer actresses in the film, namely Sarah Paulson, playing Carol’s friend Abby, and Carrie Brownstein, who played a woman Therese flirts with at a party, but their roles were relatively minor. Based on this, it can easily be said that the movie’s production is “merely satisfying demands for inclusion without actually challenging the larger structural and systemic labor issues.” (Martin, 2018).

One of the film’s US promotional posters.

In addition to its lack of inclusion of queer cast members, this movie is overwhelmingly white. Very, very few people of color were cast in this film, and the only characters who were played by people of color were playing the roles of domestic staff. This film could easily have provided more opportunities for actors of color, but it chose not to. For a movie whose storyline and direction are so openly inclusive and somewhat groundbreaking, this lack of diversity in casting is disappointing. Both Carol and Therese were complex characters, but as with many other movies and tv shows about queer people they do not represent much intersectionality. They are both white, cisgender, able-bodied lesbian women, and the only aspect of identity that the film deals with is sexuality. Carol also avoids many of the issues of gender discrimination that were present in the 1950s that could easily have made its’ storyline and character development more nuanced. It can be seen as almost the opposite of the Oscar winning film Moonlight (2016), which is entirely made up of complex, intersectional characters. Despite its inclusivity to sexuality, it turns a blind eye to aspects of identity such as race and disability that likely play an important role in the lives of many of its viewers. As well as this, despite its’ openly queer trailer, the posters for the film deliberately displayed the two main characters as facing different directions and looking away from each other. This could have been an intentional choice to convince less accepting heterosexual moviegoers to watch the film, and it also implies that the film’s homosexual content should be hidden.

The first time I saw this film, I was 16, and just beginning to think about my sexuality as something other than straight. I voraciously consumed tv and movies about Lesbian and Bisexual women, hoping to find something I related to and felt included in. Carol, and its rich and beautifully stylized cinematography, was one of the few movies that made me feel heard and understood and felt like home to me. 

A scene where we see how Therese views Carol.

Unlike other movies I had seen, such as Blue is the Warmest Color, this movie made me feel like it was made for me. I was able to relate to the romance and feel like I wasn’t alone in feeling the way I did about, likely because I am able to relate to the two characters in the film, particularly Therese. Like most other movies about queer women, this movie is directed at young, white, able-bodied, cisgender, middle-class queer women, of which I am one. It did not challenge my identity or the way I saw the world. Despite its many obvious flaws, to me the most important aspect of this movie was how it displayed the growing relationship between Therese and Carol in a way that felt relatable and evoked deep feelings that made me relive the intense and beautiful experiences of first love. 

References

Bernshoff, Harry and Griffin, Sean (2004). “Introduction,” in Queer Cinema: The Film Reader, 1-15.

Carol. (2020). Retrieved October 29, 2020, from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2402927/awards?ref_=tt_awd

Doty, Alexander. (1993) “There’s Something Queer Here” in Making Things Perfectly Queer, 1-16.

Dow, Bonnie (2001). “Ellen, Television, and the Politics of Gay and Lesbian Visibility.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 18(2), 123-140.

Martin, Alfred L. Jr (2018). “Pose(r): Ryan Murphy, Trans and Queer of Color Labor, and the Politics of Representation.” LA Review of Books.

[nerdygaymormon]

I just saw your post about Oaks and I suddenly understand why the Spirit begins to falter in me when he starts to speak. I pray that he has or will begin repenting but... that post is both disturbing and enlightening to me because I now know why God isn’t letting him have any spiritual influence on me (a genderqueer bisexual). I feel like God will never give him the true power to speak to our generation until he repents. Until then, I’mma passively ignore him as I do sincerely lose the spirit.

When he speaks at General Conference about LGBT topics, it’s important to understand where he’s coming from. His time at BYU shows an extreme bias against gay people. He also seems obsessed with opposing LGBT people, we’ve become his white whale.

________  

Four years after he was BYU President, he was made an apostle. He quickly put together a strategy for the Church to follow for opposing gay rights legislation. 

Distinguish between sexual orientation and behavior

In favor of job discrimination (prohibit gay people from being teachers or in media) and against anti-discrimination legislation

Keep gay activity illegal and punishable by law

Oppose marriage equality laws

Maintain public opinion against homosexuals & homosexuality

Fortunately, his approach ultimately failed.

________  

In 2006 he did an interview together with Elder Wickman about “same-gender attraction.” The interviewer asked what he’d say to a son who comes out as gay? And several follow-up questions about that scenario were asked. 

His responses were that he’d tell his son to not call himself gay, instead use that word to describe feelings or behavior. If that son leaves the Church and moves in with a gay friend, Elder Oaks would continue to teach him the Church’s position and encourage him to come back. 

If that son asks if he can come for a visit and bring his partner, Elder Oaks said if he had younger children still living at home, he would not allow them to come. But otherwise his response would be, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

I thought this was remarkably sad. And then 12 years later I learned he is estranged from a gay grandson, so I guess he meant what he said. 

________  

Elder Oaks has made opposing gay people his life mission. His approach has had very harmful effects and yet he never apologizes or expresses any regrets, but pushes forward in his opposition. 

It’s no wonder that many LGBT members view him warily and feel anxiety when he stands to speak.

[the-desolated-quill]

Good Omens, Queerbaiting And Death Of The Author - Quill’s Scribbles

I confess this is the most reluctant I’ve ever been to write a Scribble. When this topic came up, I remember just groaning and putting my head in my hands because I knew that, due to the nature of what I tend to write about on this blog and the fact that I’m an out and out biromantic demisexual queerbo, people would be asking me to contribute to the discourse. And honestly I don’t particularly want to. I don’t get to enjoy many films and TV shows anymore thanks to the industry doing their very best to ruin everything they touch. Can’t I just watch one good TV show without being dragged into some ideological battle?

Okay. Guess I can’t really put this off any longer.

On the 31st May, the long awaited adaptation of Good Omens was released on Amazon Video. I thought it was quite good. Not perfect. There are some things I could criticise, but overall it was a worthy adaptation of the source material and it was very enjoyable to watch. And that seems to be the general consensus with both critics and fans. However over the past couple of months since its release, a ‘controversy’ began to emerge within the fandom regarding the show’s main characters Aziraphale and Crowley. See, a large proportion of both the media and the Good Omens fanbase have interpreted the angel/demon double act as being gay, but this has sparked a backlash from some fans with them going so far as to accuse the show of queerbaiting as the show never explicitly confirms the characters’ sexuality. This then led to a backlash to the backlash, sparking a whole debate as to what constitutes good LGBT representation. Not only that, Neil Gaiman, the showrunner and original co-author of Good Omens, has stubbornly refused to confirm one way or the other whether or not Aziraphale and Crowley are more than just good friends, which has added further fuel to the fire.

Now before we go any further, I just want to disavow one argument that I see cropping up a lot and that really gets under my skin. That Aziraphale and Crowley can’t possibly be gay because they’re not men. They’re genderless beings that feel no sexual attraction. The implication being that the characters are asexual, but the way you hear people going on about it, the Ineffable Husbands seem less asexual and more like soulless robots. First off, you do know asexual people feel love too, right? We’re not Vulcans. Second, can we stop this ridiculous logic that they can’t be gay because they’re not men? It reminds me of the ‘controversy’ that surrounded Mass Effect 3 when BioWare confirmed that you could play as a gay male Commander Shepard. When people pointed out to the critics and haters that you could already play as a gay Shepard if you picked FemShep and pursued Liara, they retorted by saying that Liara doesn’t count as a woman because she’s a ‘monogendered alien.’ And my response to that was... so? She still looks like a woman and she still uses female pronouns. If FemShep is attracted to her, there’s a good chance she might be gay. It really is that simple. Aziraphale and Crowley may be genderless, but they look like men and use male pronouns. So if they were attracted to each other, they just might be gay. Period.

Anyway. Tangent over. Lets talk about Aziraphale and Crowley. You might be wondering where I stand on this whole issue. Do I believe that Aziraphale and Crowley are gay? Well honestly it depends on which version we’re talking about here. If we’re talking about the book version, I would say probably not. Don’t get me wrong. I’m almost certain book Aziraphale is gay as there are a number of references that seem to suggest that. His bookshop is in Soho, which is famous for its thriving LGBT community, the narrator mentions him going to a ‘discreet gentlemen’s club’ in the 1800s, and there’s of course this brilliant line:

“Many people, meeting Aziraphale for the first time, formed three impressions: that he was English, that he was intelligent, and that he was gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide.”

So yeah. There was never a doubt in my mind that book Aziraphale was gay. (And before anyone comments saying that the next line mentions that Aziraphale isn’t gay because angels are sexless unless they make the effort, let me ask you something. Who, out of all the characters in the book, does he make a genuine effort for? Aha!). Book Crowley on the other hand isn’t quite so clear cut. Sure there are occasional flashes of something, but it could easily just be interpreted as being gestures of friendship rather than romance. Personally I always saw book Crowley as being more aromantic/asexual. In fact their relationship reminded me a lot of my relationship with my best friend. I’m more like Aziraphale, due to being very camp, somewhat old fashioned and often quite emotional, whereas my friend is like Crowley in that she displays a facade of confidence to mask her insecurities and is extremely loyal to her friends. Now please note I’m not trying to destroy anyone’s personal headcanon here. I know for a fact many LGBT people have interpreted and drawn inspiration from Aziraphale and Crowley’s relationship for nearly 30 years since the book first came out in 1990, and I wouldn’t dream of depriving anyone of that. I’m just merely describing how I personally interpreted the characters when I read it.

So, while book Aziraphale is almost definitely gay in my opinion, I personally don’t think they were anything more than just good friends. Do I think the same about the TV version? Actually no. In fact completely the opposite. I think TV Aziraphale and Crowley are 100%, unquestionably and unashamedly in love with each other and this view is supported by the extra material Neil Gaiman has written for them, most notably the 30 minute long cold open of the third episode that shows Aziraphale and Crowley’s blossoming relationship over the course of human history, as well as how the show frames them. We hear the kind of swelling, orchestral music you would hear in a romance when Crowley saves Aziraphale’s books from a WW2 bomb, the scenes where the two argue about running away to Alpha Centauri are presented as being like a legitimate breakup (with the addition of some random passerby telling Aziraphale he’s ‘better off without him’), the other angels occasionally refer to Crowley as being Aziraphale’s boyfriend (albeit in a mocking way), and the way Michael Sheen and David Tennant play the characters makes them feel much more like an old married couple rather than being simply friends. There’s even a wonderful moment in the third episode where Crowley asks Aziraphale if he could give him a ride somewhere, to which Aziraphale responds “you go too fast for me Crowley.” It leaves very little room for doubt in my opinion, and yet Neil Gaiman refuses to verbally confirm this, even though the actors and the director have expressed numerous times that they interpreted the characters as such. Not only that, but the writing and filmmaking leaves just enough room for plausible deniability, never explicitly confirming the relationship. So the question remains, does this count as legitimate LGBT representation or is this just a very advanced form of queerbaiting?

Well first it would be useful to talk about what queerbaiting actually is, because a lot of people arguing against Good Omens don’t seem to fully understand the term. Queerbaiting is when a creator hints at a possible same sex romance without ever actually confirming or depicting the relationship. A recent example of this would be Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series. 

JK Rowling first ‘outed’ Dumbledore as gay back in 2007, saying he was in a relationship with the dark wizard Grindelwald, but unless you read the interview, you would never have known this because the book doesn’t provide any sort of hint or clue or reference to that relationship. Worse still, when given the opportunity to rectify this in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald, Rowling chose instead to downplay the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald significantly. This is queerbaiting. Implying a character might be gay or promising to introduce a gay character only to then backtrack or not fully commit. Another example would be Avengers: Endgame where the Russo Brothers announced there was going to be a gay character in the film only for it to be some nameless guy who’s only on screen for about a minute. It revolves around luring people in with the expectation of LGBT representation only to then snatch it away once they’ve got bums in seats.

(Also, just to clarify, queerbaiting is not when a bisexual or pansexual character becomes romantically involved with someone of the opposite sex. Yes it’s important that we see more bisexual and pansexual characters and yes it’s important we see more same sex couples on screen, but do NOT conflate the two. Deadpool’s pansexuality, for instance, isn’t suddenly invalid just because he has a girlfriend).

So, with this in mind, does Good Omens fit the criteria of queerbaiting. Well the sexuality of the characters are often the focal point of many interviews, with the director and actors explicitly describing Aziraphale and Crowley’s relationship as ‘a love story.’ Most notably Michael Sheen, who plays Aziraphale and who has been carrying a torch for the Ineffable Husbands since Good Omens came out. But unlike JK Rowling and the Russos, the makers of Good Omens can back up their words with content. As mentioned above, the way the show frames the relationship makes the implication quite clear. There’s even a bit where Crowley thinks Aziraphale has been killed and he leaves the burning bookshop while ‘Somebody To Love’ is playing in the background. It isn’t really very subtle. So, by my understanding, queerbaiting doesn’t seem particularly accurate when talking about Good Omens. The issue here is one of presentation. The overt subtext is all well and good, but does the fact that there’s no explicit confirmation of their relationship make it invalid? To answer that question, we must look into another relevant term. Queercoding.

Queercoding is when a character is given the traits typically associated with those commonly attributed to gay people, such as effeminate behaviour or ostentatious dress sense. This is used often as a way of getting queer relationships past the censor. Implying a character might be gay without explicitly confirming it for fear of the studio or publisher putting their foot down.

While queercoding is often intrinsically linked to queerbaiting, it’s worth noting that while queerbaiting is always seen as a negative (and rightly so), queercoding is neither positive nor negative. It’s merely a contextual device and can be positive or negative depending on execution. A positive example of queercoding would be Deadpool.

While the Merc with the Mouth has never been officially outed as pansexual, both the comics and the movies in particular have framed him as someone who doesn’t conform to heteronormative expectations. The marketing of both movies present Deadpool in traditionally feminine poses as a way of mocking and commenting on how gender is perceived in these kinds of tentpole blockbusters. The comics often make fairly explicit references towards Deadpool’s sexual flexibility for the purposes of humour, such as in his interactions with characters like Spider-Man or Thor.

The movies follow suit. The first movie is littered with moments where Deadpool alludes to being not entirely straight. He occasionally uses gay slang, we see his girlfriend Vanessa penetrate him with a strap-on during the sex montage, and there are frequent references to how sexy Hugh Jackman is, most notably near the beginning when Deadpool describes how he had to give Wolverine a handjob in order to get his own movie. The second movie meanwhile takes it a step further. Not only is the entirety of Deadpool 2 essentially one big allegory for how members of the LGBT community cope with abuse and discrimination, we also see Deadpool express a sexual interest in Colossus many times, the extended cut even going so far as to depict Deadpool trying to give him a blowjob.

Now as I said, Deadpool has never been officially outed as pansexual. That information comes from one of the comic book writers on Twitter. The comics and movies have never verbally confirmed it. We never hear Deadpool describe himself as such. But to say he’s not queer would be absurd because he clearly is. That’s how he’s framed and presented to us across the majority of media. What makes Deadpool a positive example of queercoding is how we view the character. He’s clearly extremely comfortable with expressing his own sexuality and feels no shame in his antics. While the majority of his queer moments are used for the purposes of humour, we’re always laughing with him, not at him.

Now lets take a look at a negative example of queercoding:

This is Moriarty from the BBC series Sherlock written by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss. Sherlock is without a doubt one of the worst adaptations of the canon that’s ever been made and the show’s treatment of Moriarty is a big reason for that. When he’s first introduced in The Great Game, when he’s posing as Molly’s boyfriend, Sherlock deduces that he’s gay based on really no evidence at all other than that he puts product in his hair and his underpants are showing. It’s ostensibly playing on that stereotype that any man who takes pride in their appearance isn’t masculine and therefore must be gay. (if that were true then David Beckham would be the gayest man on the fucking planet). While it becomes clear at the end of the episode that this was just an act Moriarty was putting on to fool Sherlock, he never really loses the metrosexual image. He boasts about his ‘Westwood’ clothes, we see him prance and preen like some over the top camp supervillain (more on that later) and he makes numerous double entendres that imply he’s interested in men, specifically Sherlock. There’s even a moment in The Reichenbach Fall where we see Moriarty sitting on a throne wearing the crown jewels. Ha! Do you get it? Because he’s a queen!

What makes this form of queercoding more offensive than Deadpool is, again, how we as the audience are supposed to perceive him. Moffat and Gatiss want us to laugh at Moriarty’s camp behaviour and they clearly find the prospect of shipping Moriarty and Sherlock utterly absurd, as demonstrated in the episode The Empty Hearse where we see the Sherlock fan club suggest Sherlock survived the fall because he and Moriarty were secretly lovers. This bit was there for no reason other than to take the piss out of Sherlock fans who read too much into the show’s intentional subtext. Also, crucially, Moriarty has no real character or backstory other than as a gay stereotype. He’s a lazily written caricature who serves no real purpose other than as a homophobic punchline. There’s a lot more to Deadpool than just being queer. With Moriarty however, there’s simply nothing underneath.

Moriarty is also an example of how queercoding is most commonly applied to villains. There are countless examples of this across various media over the years. The Joker from Batman, for instance. Ursula from The Little Mermaid. Scar from The Lion King. In these cases, whether intentionally or not, queercoding plants ideas of gender identity into the viewers’ heads. A male supervillain like the Joker is presented as being eccentric, arch and incredibly camp while Batman, the hero, is big and strong and serious and honourable. A manly man. Likewise, Ursula is presented as butch and unfeminine, scheming and malevolent, whereas Ariel is attractive and sweet and innocent. The ideal woman. Queercoded villains have been used to demonise the LGBT community for decades by presenting an ideal, hetronormative image of what a man or woman should be like, battling an antagonist that doesn’t fit in with traditional gender roles. Obviously there’s nothing inherently wrong with having a camp male villain or a distinctly unfeminine female villain, but it’s worth bearing in mind where these ideas originally came from and the impact it could potentially have.

So lets bring this back to Good Omens. The queercoding of Aziraphale and Crowley is obvious and it’s never presented in negative terms. (there’s a moment where Shadwell refers to Aziraphale as a pansy, but considering the man is a complete moron who draws eyes on milk bottles and thinks nipples are the gold standard way of identifying a witch, I think we can safely say he’s not to be taken seriously). In fact their relationship is incredibly sweet and endearing. Except... I can understand why Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman weren’t explicit in expressing the characters’ sexuality when the book was first published. It was 1990, both Pratchett and Gaiman were still relatively fresh faces and Western society’s attitudes toward homosexuality weren’t quite as progressive then as they are now. But it’s now 2019. Things have changed. Gay characters are appearing more frequently in books, movies and TV shows, people in general are more accepting of the LGBT community and Gaiman is now a hugely successful author with a lot of influence in the industry. Why not just make the relationship explicit?

Well there are two ways of looking at this. The first is that it really doesn’t need to be explicit. You would never hear a man and a woman talk about how incredibly hetero they are, would you? Actions speak louder than words after all. But when the two characters in question are of the same gender, suddenly the whole thing becomes a massive debate to the point where unless someone comes right out and says they are gay, people simply won’t buy it. Deadpool, tragically, has suffered from this with obnoxious frat boys deliberately glossing over the obvious queer subtext and hijacking the character for their own self-aggrandisement. This really shouldn’t be the case and this whole ‘straight until proven gay’ mindset isn’t the fault of the show. It’s entirely the fault of the viewer. The second involves our last topic of discussion. The Death of the Author. (no pun intended. RIP Pratchett).

Death of the Author refers to a literary essay written by the theorist Roland Barthes in 1967, which argues against critiquing a piece of literature based on authorial intent. Basically, once a book or movie or TV show is released to the general public, any relation to its creator becomes immaterial. The work in question must stand on its own and be judged independently. The intention of the author no longer matters. (I’m simplifying obviously, but that’s basically the gist of it. If you ever get the chance, read the essay yourself. It’s a fascinating read). Gaiman appears to be a firm believer in this philosophy. On his Tumblr account, @neil-gaiman, when asked about the the relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley, he often refuses to comment, invoking the Death of the Author mindset. It’s up the reader/viewer to interpret the characters. If you think they’re gay, then they’re gay. If you think they’re just friends, then they’re just friends. Some could call this a bit of a cop out, and you’re entitled to do so, but I understand where Gaiman is coming from. We’ve seen writers like JK Rowling get into trouble for queerbaiting, saying that she always intended for Dumbledore to be gay, but never actually showing any real evidence for it in the text, and Gaiman doesn’t want to fall into the same trap. Plus it demonstrates that Gaiman respects the views and interpretations of his fans, unlike Rowling who responded to criticism of her queerbaiting on Twitter with GIFs of people sticking their fingers in their ears and ‘blocking out the haters.’

In some ways I do feel very sorry for Gaiman. On the one hand he wants to stay true to his and Pratchett’s original vision, but on the other hand he doesn’t want to disappoint the hundreds of fans who do view the characters as being gay. Good Omens has been cited as an extremely positive influence on many queer readers, some even going so far as to say that it was this very book that allowed them to finally accept their identities and come out of the closet. Heartwarming stories like this can be found all over the web and hopefully many more will emerge now that the TV adaptation has been released. If Gaiman were to suddenly turn around in an interview one day and say ‘oh. No. Sorry. Aziraphale and Crowley were always intended to be just friends. You’re all wrong’, it would destroy people who invested so much in this relationship. Likewise, if he explicitly confirmed in an interview that the two characters are definitely gay, people would either accuse him of queerbaiting if the show doesn’t fully live up to their expectations or accuse him of shoving his political opinions down their throats. He can’t win either way really. That being said, I can’t help but respect Gaiman for sticking to his guns. It demonstrates that he’s confident in his skills as a writer and his ability to make his intentions clear in the text, that he respects the ideas and opinions of his readers and fans, and that he also respects the ideas and opinions of the cast and crew of the Good Omens TV show. While Gaiman has refused to confirm one way or the other, others like Michael Sheen or  director Douglas Mackinnon have made their views very clear. Aziraphale and Crowley are in love. That’s their interpretation and they have every right to it.

So do I believe Good Omens is queerbaiting? In my opinion, no. Does that mean I believe it’s faultless? Again, no. If the intention is to depict Aziraphale and Crowley as being lovers, then I think they could have done a bit more. Obviously I’m not suggesting a full blown sex scene or anything like that. Even something as simple as them holding hands or hugging each other would have done. Some physical intimacy of some kind. Because as it stands, Good Omens does share problems with a lot of other TV shows in how they present same sex couples, in that they’re consciously aware that they are presenting to a heterosexual viewer. This is why a relationship between two women is often sexualised and eroticised for the titillation of straight men whereas the relationship between two men can often be quite chaste. Very rarely do you see two men making out or doing anything beyond a quick peck. Good Omens sadly fits into that camp, though just to be clear, I’m not blaming Neil Gaiman or the show for this. I’m merely saying that this is part of a wider systemic issue that needs to be talked about and addressed as the industry moves forward. (Hell, that might as well be be the title of my entire Tumblr profile). Also, whether you believe the relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley is platonic or romantic, it does not change the impact this story has had on many LGBT readers nor the fact that the story is about love. It’s important to bear this in mind because while, yes, it is important to have this discussion, we can’t lose sight of the positive message it conveys with regards to building bridges and closing divides between opposing groups.

“And perhaps the recent exertions had had some fallout in the nature of reality because, while they were eating, for the first time ever, a nightingale sang in Berkeley Square. No one heard it over the noise of the traffic, but it was there, right enough.”

[fascinatedhelix]

A shitload of Deltarune headcanons below the cut:

Hometown

Kris

Has selective mutism, but can really talk if you get them going.

Is skilled in many musical pursuits, including singing, but doesn’t like having to face the audience in order to perform, so they prefer the piano.

Might have something along the lines of bipolar disorder, but where that starts and the frequent possessions by foreign entities ends is a mystery. Adverse reactions to medicine prevent them from going the medical route of treatment.

Obtained the birdcage from the attic where either the previous homeowner or Toriel left it after having a pet bird.

Was adopted as a baby.

Highschool age but probably not a Senior or Freshman.

More of a battle strategist and puzzle solver than a leader, but still a valued member of the team regardless.

Susie

Has been an outcast from a young age.

Wore that funny ponytail from the concept art as a kid, as well as a bow. Probably dressed much more feminine back then.

Probably either poor or subject to subpar parenting, either neglect or hovering. Maybe something like Lancer’s situation where her family isn’t at rock bottom, but they don’t care enough to provide for her as much as they can.

Has some degree of pica, but has a stomach strong enough to not die from it.

Doesn’t like quiet people because one of her neglectful parents is like that.

Would probably eat cigarettes instead of smoke them.

If she had been introduced to Kris while they were pranking someone, they might have sparked a friendship as the school troublemakers.

The Town

Monster religion isn’t Christianity. There’s no cross, and there’s a pointed emphasis on worshipping an Angel as opposed to the son of God, so Jesus either isn’t in their mythos at all or is not considered as important a figure. One part of their religion is the reduced or nonexistent consumption of alcohol.

There was no full-scale war between humans and monsters, but there was enough conflict to designate territories where one is the vast majority over the other. Gerson’s writings may have been based on the tensions of this time period.

The school used to be a religious boarding school but was secularized sometime before the events of the game.

The general public isn’t 100% sure what is up with Kris. Though they’re a bit of a local celebrity, nobody’s really sure why Kris acts the way they do. Media doesn’t depict humans as being so taciturn or erratic, so they honestly don’t know what to make of them.

Darkworld

Darkeners

In nature, darkeners are not monsters, but rather another classification of magical being that is a little more physical in makeup. If a monster dies, they turn into dust, but if a darkener dies, they might leave a shriveled corpse or a pile of sludge.

Darkeners tend to be changeable based on the amount of light in the environment; too much light makes them antsy and irritable, while little to no light makes them relaxed and confident. Light and dark levels affect their power, so of course, it’d affect their moods too.

The Board used to be its own sovereign nation, but it was either conquered by the Card Kingdom or merged by way of royal marriage.

Darkeners can reduce themselves into cards or toys if too badly damaged, or to play dead if threatened.

Lancer

Middle school age. Probably knows where babies come from but he isn’t at the point where he finds it anything but gross (prepubescent).

More educated than he looks, but not in anything especially important, just stuff that looks good on a king.

Will eventually grow to be as big as his father, but he probably won’t develop his temperament.

He inherits his goofy personality from his mom, even though she died/disappeared when he was very little.

He’s got some dog-like traits, but not nearly as much as the dog monsters from Snowdin. It’s a contributor to his hole-digging habit.

He’ll probably have some initial trouble speaking when he grows his big boy teeth (fangs like his dad’s).

His goofy demeanor will cool down when he gets older so he might come to resemble Asgore in terms of personality when he gets to that point, though perhaps less oblivious to others.

The Kings

The King of Spades’ given name is Pike. He doesn’t like it because it sounds dog-like and makes him sound simple-minded, so it's using is only reserved for those extremely close to him (that is, his wife, at least before she left the picture, and maybe the other kings).

The other kings are either Spades’ cousins, his brothers, or members of three other royal houses. Either way, the lot of them have known each other for a very long time.

Clover is the Princess/Jack of Clubs, though she isn’t in the habit of acting like it, hence why she’s still running free despite being in competition for the throne, technically. Too busy arguing with herself.

The kings all had different reactions when the princess and later prince were born. Clubs was experiencing a lot of emotions when Clover was born, with pride and protectiveness lording over all the others. Diamonds thought the kids were cute as babies but he didn’t want them to puke on him so he kept his distance. Hearts loved the babies to the point he acted kind of like a second mom.

The King of Diamonds is a rather apathetic guy who just wants to do his job and get paid at the end of the day. He, like the Rudinns, has something of a weird dragon-like instinct to hoard shiny stuff, so he likes to have his things bejeweled to hell and back.

The King of Hearts is a lot like the Hathys in that he’s kind of a lovebug. He’s a sappy guy who probably reads romance novels, good and bad, out the wazoo and is probably the biggest consumer of romcoms this side of the Darkworld. Finds the art of courtship to be the purest of art forms, even though he’s single.

The King of Clubs has as many personalities as he has heads, and they all have their own names, but the consensuses he comes to are usually really sound and thought through, so he makes for an effective though slow king. He was perhaps the closest to Spades out of the lot of them, being black suits and all, but ultimately this helped none during Spades’ takeover. He’s kind of like a weird lion hydra.

The King of Spades was, at one point, a rather quiet guy himself. He preferred to work in the shadows and keep to himself, and to his credit, this worked well for him, though he tended to feel forgotten and useless at times. The Knight came after him because he was a relatively insecure soul and more prone to holding grudges, which gave the Knight something to latch onto and blow out of proportion.

Rouxls Kaard

He’s made of silly putty. Though most headcanons of him make it so he melts when stressed, I think he only gets all liquidy when he’s relaxed. He probably sleeps in a bathtub.

He consciously has to keep up that eloquent facade, because he thought it was cool at one point, but he’s done it so much it’s become a force of habit and now he can’t not do it.

I like to imagine he’s bisexual, though he’s probably too preoccupied with trying to keep himself alive than pursuing love. If he did return anyone’s affections, he’d probably be very hush-hush about it at first because of his concerns with Spades.

He probably has slurped worms from a soup bowl like he was slurping up ramen before.

He literally can’t stop smiling. Has anyone else seriously not noticed how his smile never wanes when he gets mad or scared? It actually gets wider, you can only see how he feels through his eyes and tone. Not sure if this is how his face is structured or what.

I like the idea of him having some degree of reality-warping powers as the rules card, but that’d require his opponent to be playing his game. So, the only instance in which he could do that is if someone accepted a proper challenge from him. Puzzles are not his forte at all, and it’s implied he’s incompetent at battle too, so what is his game, then?

[the-voodoo-cat]

I do want to genuinely apologize about the post regarding Caleb and Essek. It was meant as a jest, though I see now that it was in bad taste and I apologize. I’m not trying to hurt people but I clearly did and I really am sorry for that. I’ve deleted the post since because it does not reflect my actual thoughts and feelings on the topic and I want to be very clear that I have no problem (nor would do any thing about it even if I did) with Caleb ending up in a romantic relationship with a woman in canon! I was speaking about a very specific hypothetical in a very exaggerated way that was meant as a joke, but I understand that many people did not see it that way and I apologize that I let my own passion cloud my judgement. I will not make posts like that in the future, and I will do my best to not hurt people again in the ways I have with my past posts. 

I also want to explain where this all came from so  here’s the essay. The whole thing. Hopefully more eloquent than I’ve been on here recently. It was written months ago, so some of the things in it may seem strange in the context of current canon but I don’t feel like completely revising it.

I am putting the essay under a cut to avoid clogging up people’s timelines, but I do encourage people to at least try to read some of it. If there really are biphobic flaws in it, please please tell me genuinely, because that is so far from my intention as a critic and an academic. All I wish to do is point out harmful rhetoric, and in the context of this previous episode explain why I was so upset in the first place. (also if you’re wondering about the pronouns and addressees in the essay it was actually written as a letter to the cast but I couldn’t find an email to send it to)

I want to be clear before I continue that this entire discussion has nothing to do with shipping, but also that while the canonization of ships is irrelevant to representation that does not mean it should be mocked or trivialized either, because the concept of shipping is often an outlet for queer people to explore relationships or romance in ways they do not get in media. In regard to Fjord’s sexuality, my insistence on giving confirmation that he is gay also has nothing to do with shipping, or any form of feeling that he should be in a relationship with any of the other characters. I mention this because it is an argument often weaponized against queer fans, and I do not want it to be seen as any part of my motivation for writing this letter. I have seen many queer fans feel the need to walk away from twitter and the Critter community because of the abuse they suffer for promoting any form of gay or trans speculations, and while I understand that the cast has absolutely no power over this behavior, the least you could do is not participate in this abuse.

As it stands now, the way the cast and Brian discuss Fjord and make jokes regarding him is contradictory, and it is in this contradiction that the homophobic rhetoric I mentioned originates. Fjord is described in Talks as a gay man, through frequent allusions to ‘sword swallowing’ or him being a bottom, yet also described as (or at least hinted at) having romantic intentions toward Jester. This contradiction between showing him as gay and showing him as straight (or bisexual) is not only confusing, but cruel and demeaning to gay men—the discussions of his sexual relationship or interest with men becomes the butt of a joke, something to laugh at or something to mock, while you placate non-queer fans by ensuring us “don’t worry though, he’s straight.” This reinforces an extremely harmful rhetoric that gayness is a joke, or a fetishistic hypersexual phase that can make a character quirky or weird but still eventually normalized to straightness. Not only does this behaviour harm and invalidate gay fans on a personal level, it also encourages straight fans to fetishize or trivialize gayness in the community, and further silence gay voices.

The jokes made on Talks about sword swallowing or bottoming, specifically, belie a particular brand of straight ignorance or apathy that is actually as harmful as outright homophobia—if you don’t specifically say you’re mocking a gay man or gayness, then you aren’t, right? Unfortunately, this argument is inherently flawed because it ignored the significance of microaggressions in systemic oppression and abuse of minorities. When you mock a man for his sexual interest in men or allude to a man having these desires while also claiming that he is romantically interested in a woman, you turn gay sexual desire into joke and improbability. That is to say, when you paint a gay or bisexual man’s interest in men as purely sexual, you trivialize the importance of man loves man (mlm) relationships and invalidate their social qualities by making them seem inherently lesser to male/female relationships. Moreover, you contribute to a systemic fetishization of mlm relationships that turns them into an object for the sexual desire of straight women and dehumanizes the men involved. Thus, by constantly alluding to Fjord’s sexual interest in men while reinforcing his romantic interest in a woman you paint all potential sexual interactions (both in his history and his future) Fjord has with men as fetishistic, trivial, petty, socially nonviable and ultimately meaningless, and in doing so also paint all mlm relationships this same way.

Furthermore, your jokes about Fjord being a bottom were, perhaps unintentionally, a direct reference to Fjord being mlm. Although they are used in colloquial speech rather casually now, the words “top” and “bottom” are not synonymous with “dom” and “sub” but rather specifically refer to gay sexual intercourse. As such, when you say Fjord is a bottom, you are saying he has had or has interest in having sex with another man. The joke about Fjord taking the “Pact of the Bottom” is rather humorous, so long as he is actually a bottom. However, if he is a straight man with no interest in having sex with other men, it instead implies that gay sex is a fetish, something weird or strange and inherently unnatural, and that men who have it are subordinate, lesser, and/or weak. Similarly, if he is bisexual but only engages romantically with women this rhetoric still creates negative connotations and hypersexualization of mlm relationships by making them singularly about sex in a way that is typically used to discuss fetish and kink.

If Fjord is gay, all of these jokes and allusions are not so inappropriate, and so long as he eventually finds, or has in his history, a fulfilling romantic relationship with another man there is nothing wrong with the way he is being discussed. The need for him having a long term mlm relationship stems from the lack of proper mlm relationships in media, and also avoids the trope of the hypersexualized fetishistic object of the gay man that I discussed above. Also, there is an evident gap in Critical Role’s general representation of gay happiness, and although I would never force or even request that representation, I want you all to be aware that you are falling into a trope of tragic and ultimately lonely or unloved gay men both in the depiction of Tarry and of Gilmore. That is not to say that they (particularly Gilmore, whom I adore) are not outstanding characters that are dynamic and interesting, but just that they are the only major gay characters and thus neither of them finding fulfilling romantic love falls into a bit of a trope. As a note, when I say “gay” here, I do mean gay (as in mlm) not queer (as in LGBTQ), which is why I do not include the lesbian relationship between Kima and Allura.

Finally, one last note: sexuality is not a ploy, or a backstory, or a secret. Sexuality, like race, class, and gender, are key and immediate aspects of a character that, on a meta level that can be confirmed and discussed on a show like Talks Machina, should be available to the audience right away. I get that backstory is something all of the players are being cagey about, and I understand why, but I encourage you to not think about a character’s sexuality in this way—the character may not reveal their sexuality to the party but that does not mean the cast should be keeping that information away from the audience.

Finally I do want to apologize once again for some of my own rhetoric, even in this essay I know I refer to Fjord’s interest in Jester (or women generally) as “straight” instead of immediately acknowledging his potential bisexuality. For me, I have seen Bi-ness used as a ploy by writers so many times to make a character quirky, while still putting them in a m/f relationship, that for us queer fans I think it is important to remember that m/f bi relationships are the only ones that straight fans find acceptable the majority of the time and this does really hurt a lot of queer people. 

[caribbeanfeminist-blog]

QUEER REPRESENTATION IN MEDIA 🏳️‍🌈

A post by: Danae Ali @acidmerbaby for @caribbeanfeminist

Queer Representation in media, be it television shows, books, movies, or even in the music industry, has significantly increased in recent years due to the progressive normalisation and acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals, but still has a very long way to go.

Still, in 2018, Queer Erasure in the media is an issue. You would think that with the recent headway made by the LGBTQ+Community, this would become less of a problem. However, there are numerous issues pertaining to the representation of Queer individuals in the media which are still very prominent and frequent such as Queer Erasure as well as Stereotyping. In this article, I will be talking on the issue of Queer Erasure.

Firstly, we must understand why accurate, positive representation is necessary.

Everybody is different, we all know that of course, as one of the earliest lessons we learn as a developing child. However, there are certain characteristics, such as race, religion, sexuality, gender and physical/mental ability, to name a few, which segregate us even further. In today’s world, ideals of intolerance, discrimination and hatred are so interwoven in the fabric of our society that due to these differences, such marginalised groups are discriminated against and denied opportunities and basic human rights. This is largely attributed to human history and many people being determined to carry over these antiquated mannerisms into modern society.

Due to this, we the LGBTQ+ Community, have been struggling to have our voices heard over those that divide us. A vital role in this, is representation. Representation can positively impact the viewers in many ways. It can present LGBTQ+ individuals as they are, as people, in order to spread awareness in the hope that people may change their minds.

Casually showing LGBTQ+ people just existing, living a normal life just as anyone else around them, can help acquaint people with the idea of them existing and being prevalent in their day-to-day lives. This is important because, while most of the population accept the existence of the Community, they still view it as something that should be censored, as if it’s something to be embarrassed about. I’m sure you’ve heard at least one person say, “I’m fine with gay people, as long as they don’t publicly show it.” Don’t you see how wrong that is? To treat someone being themselves as if it’s disgusting, or inappropriate? That presents their sexuality/gender identity to them, and the world, as something that should be hidden, as if it’s shameful.

This is incredibly damaging because to a young, queer person, it teaches them that something is ‘wrong with them’ and that it’s something to be embarrassed about. It also perpetuates the idea that that same something is ‘unnatural’ or ‘inappropriate’ for the public eye. It promotes the further alienation of Queer people from the rest of society. Therefore, representation, although it may not seem to be, is one of the most important tools which can be utilised to help destroy the segregation and negative image of Community constantly perpetuated by those in power.

Media consumption in our society is the highest it has ever been due to Globalisation and the Internet as well as the fact that devices such as laptops, tablets and phones are now commonplace within the average household. This widespread channel of potential distribution must be utilised to its full potential. On-screen representation is one of the best ways to obtain information about the world, therefore it is crucial that this information is not used to the detriment of marginalised groups.

Moving on to Queer Erasure. In today’s progressive society, there is much more representation that we could have ever hoped to get 20 years ago. Nevertheless, there is much room for improvement.

For one thing, representation doesn’t mean the token white gay that the show’s executives including for the sake of having a gay character. Who, majority of the time, plays into a stereotype such as the ‘gay best friend’. Now, there is obviously nothing wrong with having a best friend who is gay, but your only reason for becoming their friend shouldn’t be because they’re gay. In that case, it’s usually fetishizing which stems from the presentation of gay men in this way by mainstream media, as a gross generalisation, rather than a diverse group of people each with his own personality.

It also doesn’t mean the lesbian couple included for the pleasure of men. In that case, it’s once again fetishization, because to present lesbians, or queer women in general, as a source of pleasure for men rather than as their own person, is extremely toxic and dehumanising. It spreads the message that they exist for the pleasure of men, not as their own person. And that, furthermore, they must be of some use to men to be accepted, due largely in part to misogynistic ideals which survived to today. It also makes men feel entitled to their attention, which dehumanises them further.

True representation means having queer women who don’t all exist for men’s pleasure, masculine/feminine gay men, queer POC, bisexuals, pansexuals, polysexuals. Include gender non-conforming individuals. Have trans, genderfluid, and non-binary representation. Normalise everybody within the Community, represent everybody within the Community. Give young queer individuals people to look up to. Let them know that there’s nothing wrong with them.

A fairly recent example of Queer Erasure is the Bohemian Rhapsody movie, in which, Freddie Mercury will not be portrayed as bisexual. You can’t crop out a piece of his identity because you don’t like it. That’s extremely disrespectful and, as I have mentioned too many times before, presents his bisexuality as a negative aspect of his life. If you are going to do a movie about his life, include all of his life because if he had no issue with his sexuality, why should you now choose to exclude this part of his life.

As a result of constant Bisexual Erasure, many of today’s world doesn’t acknowledge the existence of Bisexual people and consistently invalidate them. However, at least there is some representation, for many other identities. For people who identify as pansexual, asexual, polysexual and non-binary, to name a few, there is almost no representation at all. Whenever I come out as pansexual, I almost always have to explain it. To this day, there are only two instances of pansexual representation I have come across.

Another instance of Queer Erasure is in the Marvel films. Do you know that in the comics, Loki is explicitly queer, and Valkyrie is bisexual? Odds are, you didn’t, because these facts were omitted from the movies. And for what purpose? Because it was too ‘explicit’? Someone’s sexuality should never be treated as explicit.

There is also the issue of negative representation. One very prominent example being the TV show ‘Friends’. In the show, jokes are frequently made at the expense of Susan and Carol’s relationship. Implying that there is something odd about them being lesbians, and often saying how Ben must be confused being raised by them.

Another instance is of Chandler’s ‘father’. Now I say ‘father’ because she is a trans woman whom the group constantly refers to as ‘he/him’, or laugh about her gender identity, which is blatantly transphobic and downright rude. This can lead to the audience believing that it’s okay to do the same to a transgender individual they know because it’s what they’ve seen and viewed as normal and acceptable.

However, there are sometimes where there are amazing examples of queer such as in Orange is the New Black, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, The Fosters and How to Get Away with Murder.

I see no reason for the erasure of Queer individuals from mainstream media as I , as a member of the LGBTQ+ Community, see nothing wrong with my identity and am the farthest thing possible from embarrassed about it, so I sincerely hope that there will not be as many instances occurring from here going forward as we move towards an even better tomorrow in which we can thrive.

[phaylenfairchild]

I Just Learned What RadFem Is, and It’s Terrifying

I must be a lot more unplugged than I thought.

As a Trans person, it’s important to strike a balance between having your finger on the pulse of adversity and progress, but also keep a safe distance from the toxicity the can wear you down and ultimately pull you under the current.

Especially in the current climate, where emotions are running at an all time high and common sense has exited the building, which is on fire and crumbling around us like a scene from a Hollywood disaster movie. Minorities, specifically those who have found themselves on the receiving end of an onslaught of political abuse and social terrorism, have to self preserve. Sometimes that means turning off social media, which can inundate a casual user with hateful rhetoric, wordy news articles spreading misinformation, and people they care about, friends, family, casting away their fear of retribution or accountability and putting their prejudices proudly on parade. It can be shocking, deeply disturbing and overall very, very sad.

Knowing when to shut the world off can be a blessing. There is nothing wrong with putting down your sword and retreating to the safe harbor of netflix and pizza, at least that’s what I tell myself. Things are spiraling into some dystopian parallel universe, where upside down is right-side up. Trying to make sense of the chaos and understand the insanity can make you insane.

A lot of people have gone crazy. We don’t call it crazy anymore, though. We call it religious freedom, or alt-right viewpoints or alternative facts. It’s all radicalism.

While on the phone with a friend in the UK, she told me about a woman on the news who created the “Radfem” movement. I had not heard the term Radfem before, but it’s not exactly science to determine that it implies a Radical Feminist. They’re basically TERFS- Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, but reject being referred to as TERFS, claiming it is a slur.

“They’re a hundred times worse than TERFS…” My friend told me. After a few days of research, I discovered she was right.

Radfems are indeed much worse than the traditional TERF. As where TERFS are typically casual with their prejudices, I’ve found they lack self-awareness. They try to logicize their bigotry and sell it to their audience packaged as a “Sophisticated Arguments” and “Clever Rebuttals.” They resist being called a bigot, it offends them. Instead they ask others to sympathize with them for being portrayed as villainous. They are villainous, make no mistake, but they lack the capacity to comprehend why we make that deduction. Therefore, they presume the role of a victim under assault by an army of “Men in Dresses.”

Radfems are a different beast in that they embrace their radicalized sensibilities with pride. They covet their bigotry and wear it like a badge of honor. They aren’t interested in posing as innocent victims of a make-believe Trans agenda, but desire to be viewed as vigilant guardians of femininity, sexuality and womanhood. They aggressively attack, unprovoked, nonsensically hellbent on creating a narrative that paints them as a hero trying to slay a mythical beast. Radfems are completely consumed by their hatred and any awareness of a shared reality is entirely absent- They exist in an imaginarium where only others like themselves exist. They feed off each others rage. They have handed over their freedom of thought and developed a hive mind, informing each others opinions- and their very souls have gone septic, sending them into a state of madness not altogether unlike a rabid dog. They can no longer differentiate between right and wrong, helpful or harmful, kindness or cruelty. They have gone primitive, they only know outrage. They fling their arms about, bellowing inflammatory slurs and when shut out by the public, they complain they have been oppressed for being women.

Despite their vocal intensity, they’re actually a cowardly collective. Their movement lies mostly on social media where they create ridiculous smear campaigns against Transgender women, whom they believe are trying to coerce into their space with the intent of penetrating them by force. Radfems, I’ve noticed, mostly identify as lesbians, and have presumed entitlement over the whole of lesbianism, for example, how lesbians behave, who can be one, and what makes you a good lesbian. If you’ve ever had relationships with men, you’re going to be viewed as traitorous to the RadFem collective. There is one way to be a Radfem, and any departure from that makes you their enemy.

As far as I can tell, the RadFem movement sprouted up like stinkweed, first in the UK, from one woman’s dissatisfaction with the Labour Party deciding to include Transgender rights as part of their manifsto in defending The Gender Recognition Act of 2004. Recently, the GRA has had broad changes proposed, allowing Transwomen to self-identify, rather than navigate years of obstacles and red tape.

Venice Allen — RadFem Organizer

Spearheading the RadFem movement is Venice Allan, a 43-year-old from South London, who was suspended from the Labour Party after an investigation revealed she had been heavily engaged in creating and posting anti-trans photos. Doubling down on her hate-parade, Allan publicly condemned Lily Madigan, the first transgender woman to be elected as a women’s officer in the Labour Party. Then, just last week, Allan also found herself banned from twitter for promoting hatred and inciting violence toward Transgender women. She still has her facebook page.

Transgender women have become more visible in the UK, even assuming positions of power. This alone can likely be credited with Allan’s gory birth of RadFem as an opposition.

Quick to join Allan in the formation of the RadFem movement was Lily Maynard (A pseudonym, she informs us via her website.) Lily is Mother to a 15 year old girl, Jessie, who came out to her as Transgender in 2015. Maynard, who describers herself as a one-time “bisexual, polyamorous, gender-fluid, rainbow-sparkle unicorn (who) lived that way for many years,” was so distraught by her daughter’s confession that she was Transgender, she intervened and claims that, together, they worked their way through it and are now committed to revealing the truth regarding the “Transgender War on Women.”

Maynard wrote and article called “A Mum’s Voyage Through Transtopia: Love and Resistance.”

It’s essentially a confession on how she mentally tortured her Trans daughter, Jessie, brainwashing her into conforming to her birth gender and rejecting Transgender ideation. Jessie, herself, contributes to the article in the postscript, and it is heartbreaking.

“Although at the time I didn’t appreciate it, the constant repetition of “you can’t be a boy” did me good. A lot of good. I had been spending too much time on the internet and I had got it into my head that somehow, biological girls could really be boys, if they “identified” as such (& vice versa).

As someone who’s always had a mostly realistic grip on the world, for some reason I had been pulled into a world where boys could become girls and girls could become boys. I felt that because I said I was a boy, I was a boy” — Jessie Maynard

Drawing a parallel; If TERFS are the Focus On The Family of hyperfeminists, the RadFems are the Westboro Baptist Church. They make great spectacles with the intention of generating attention from the public and recruiting other women into their ranks. It is a warped, cult-like organization that is equally dangerous to the public as it is to the mental state of those who enthusiastically self-declare as RadFems. They have no time for science, facts, and reject the idea of sexual or gender fluidity across the spectrum. They hate Trans women and this wholly defines their identity. It is their only purpose; To serve RadFem justice by spreading propaganda and promoting the erasure of Trans people. To be clear, they state in their manifesto that they do accept Transmen into their legion. Because they Bleed.

No one told the RadFems that not all women menstruate. Many women deal with infertility as well, and have never been pregnant. That doesn’t disqualify them as women. But, I digress.

Allan began organizing efforts to recruit other women into her collective, including Linda Bellos and Shiela Jefferys and eventually decided to take her band of angry Fem-Lesbians on tour, which she called “We Need To Talk: UK and Ireland Tour.”

https://medium.com/media/142b852ca00c440d6bfe34391741c80a/href

Most do not welcome the RadFems with open arms. As soon as they publicized their intent to tour Ireland, dozens of National organizations and hundreds of individuals alike composed an open letter to Allan and her folly, saying, “We neither want nor need your lecture tour. You’re not welcome here.” Many others have followed suit in cancelling RadFem’s “Transgender War On Women” rallies and appearances, including Millwall in Southeast London.

During an event for International Women’s Day, Allan appeared before MPs Heidi Alexander and Ellie Reeves, as well as Steve Bullock, mayor of Lewisham to ask “Why can’t I speak?” But… that’s all she did, uninterrupted.

https://medium.com/media/894544d1e92c8ce4a78e2fdef5bc4902/href

The ire of RadFems is as extreme as it gets, save reounding up Transwomen like dogs and shooting them. This is the kind of rhetoric they post:

It is untrue that 91% of Trans women are autogynephiliacs. So you don’t have to google, Autogynephiliac is defined as a sex-fueled mental illness. This is the kind of material that RadFems distribute in order to shape opinions regarding Transgender women, implying they are “Extremely jealous” and want to “Wear our skin.”

In my foray into their cesspool of hatred and repugnant lies, I found some of their posts humorous, ironically.

https://medium.com/media/7a2b745fd22cfbb85eef670c86d7b62d/href

Sheila Jeffrys, Anne Ruzlyo and Julia Long — from the public page We Need To Talk UK and Ireland tour

Sadly, there is nothing feminist about blind hatred. It clear these RadFem lesbians fear Transgender women. They believe that Trans women threaten their sexuality, or represent some form of competition for them within the lesbian community. They have sexualized the state of being Transgender to the point of obsessively associating the acts of rape and physical assault with being Trans. They become defensive over their lesbianism when broaching the subject of Transgender women, which is ironic, because as far as I had researched, many of these RadFems routinely present outside gender norms- even as the opposite gender- often with such masculinity and dominance, I had to wonder how many steps away these women were from being Transgender themselves.

Historically, we know that the most anti-gay individuals exhibit, albeit discreetly, gay interests. Most staunch anti-gay Republicans have been caught in compromising circumstances with other men, including male sex workers and underage boys.

One this is clear, there is no valid motivation for these extremists. Transgender women cost them nothing and their existence does them no harm. They lose nothing by coexisting peacefully alongside people whose plights they do not know, understand or have any interest in. As with so many instances of social terrorism, there is no winner, there is no genuine purpose except to demonize innocent people who do not meet their standard of acceptability. Odd coming from lesbians who, when it comes to many others, don’t meet that standard either.

Interested in learning more? Here’s their facebook page.

Powered by WPeMatico

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2GsnQlc via IFTTT

[lawlightfan42069]

iyo when you write non-straight characters should you specify their sexuality/gender? I mean I'm personally a very 'not into labels at all' person for my own sexuality but support ppl who do find comfort in labels. but when I write I also tend to go toward the 'he just loves who he loves !!!' that sounded stupid but idk how to explain it.. so... like I was wondering why you feel strongly about explicitly stating someone's queerness instead of it being implied (at least u come off as that sorta)

i do definitely feel like that so!! i happen to have a lot of feelings about this so get ready for a Long Ramble. this is a precaution before ive even started typing i just know im gonna write a lot

i think before we start saying anything, we’ve got to acknowledge the difference between people who say that they dont like labels, and writing characters who Don’t Like Labels™. pointing out the problems of the latter is not a condemnation of the former. if someone rly doesnt feel like labeling their sexuality or gender, thats totally alright. the difference between these two is the person is a nuanced, multifaceted human being who may have lots of personal reasons for feeling that way, while the second is a fictional character that is Created and informed by cultural views of the creator. a person is not “created” by one single author and characters arent like…real living agents that have their Own Free Will, they are what their creators make of them. anyway i just feel like this is a rly important distinction that gets lost often!! i’m also more willing to look favorably on someone who self describes that way writing characters based on their own experiences, bc this perspective is inherently different from a straight person writing these sorts of characters. but moving on. 

whats also important to understand, beyond writing characters, is how being openly not straight is shunned. queer people are not allowed to Exist as openly queer and they have not been allowed historically. even these days among people who consider themselves progressive, you’ll often hear that “its alright if someone is gay but do they have to shove it in my face all the time.” this attitude isnt somehow formed in vacuum, but created in a society that treats been openly queer as a taboo. we aren’t allowed to be open about our sexualities the way straight people are. we can’t acknowledge that we’re queer lest someone tells us to Stop Shoving It In Their Face (not missing the irony as we’re surrounded by 400 billboards of hetero couples everywhere). i dont wan’t to delve into other aspects of discrimination and get too off track here, i just want to focus on how being Openly queer is treated as a taboo, particularly among people who still want to call themselves ‘accepting.’ the only way society allows queer people to exist is if they never remind anyone, Ever that they are not straight.

this is Integral to understanding why the i Don’t Like Labels characters are so frustrating. the unwillingness to Explicitly talk about queer people carries over quite handily to media. the same faux progressive people that demand queer people never talk about being queer bc its Too Much Information, will praise queer coded characters that hint at their sexuality but never confirm it. the reason these characters are written is not to genuinely explore why someone might feel uncomfortable with applying labels to themselves, but to appease people who will accept queerness as long as they never have to acknowledge it. this way, u can court queer people interested in representation And people who might like the story but will be uncomfortable with explicit queerness. its an attempt for writers to cash in on peoples desires for interesting queer characters without ever actually fully committing to representing them. you dont get to claim to support queer people if ur also out there providing comfort for peoples homophobia. you cant have a foot in both doors. 

describing queer experiences without calling them queer means that youre okay with this story as long as u dont acknowledge it as something Explicitly not straight and like…why?? why is it suddenly not okay when u take that bundle of experiences and use the word that theyre defining?? theres Weight behind using words like bi, gay, lesbian and if u reject them are u Really okay with lgbtq people? or are you okay with them Despite the fact that theyre lgbtq and not because you take into account theyre lgbtq. acceptance is not tolerating people Despite something, its acknowledging it and validating it as an okay thing to be. especially when it is something that historically Not been validated as okay. dismantling structural systems of queerphobia does not go about by ignoring queerphobia…shit this doesnt just fade away by chance, it takes active work. and part of this active work is Acknowledging Peoples Queerness As Something that is okay Out In The Open. the You in this isnt directed at you anon, just people who have these sentiments. 

throwing vague statements like ‘they just love who they love’ Also creates this level of ambiguity. you might say “well why do u need the certainty when ur describing what is at the very least, something obviously very not straight” and to that i say youd be fucking surprised at how goddamn hard straight people will try to erase the queerness out of a character. like i’m going to use a game called life is strange as a example. i’ll give some background: in the game, the main character max can romance both chloe and warren. note that max is not one of those blank state wholly customisable bioware-esque player characters, she has a personality outside of the choices u make. anyway, the conclusion that is Logically drawn from this is that she is most likely bisexual. or at the very least in some way, not straight. and Yet i have seen discussions that say “she doesnt have a set sexuality it just depends on the playthrough so shes not rly a Queer Character.” even more than that, ive seen people that saw “well even in the chloe one shes not necessarily gay or bi maybe shes just Making an Exception for chloe bc their relationship transcends sexuality” and like ??? Why??? why cant she just be bi?? even when given a queer romance, why do u try and interpret it in a way that sets her up as straight?? ive seen people say “its not a romance its just something that Transcends Words” as if this is… mutually exclusive from being a romance. like… Why doesnt this happen when hetero relationships are depicted?? ive literally never seen someone say “u know, maybe hes not attracted to women and just Making an Exception so hes not straight” why dont u see people try to erase the romance aspect out of hetero romances by claiming their relationship is “Beyond Words.” this treatment is 1000% only ever afforded to queer characters. this attempt to play off romance as not rly romantic is only done to queer characters, even if its done subconsciously. people will Refuse to accept a character is queer as fuck if you dodge around it, because heteronormativity is so ingrained in every interaction that even obviously queer characters get filtered through this lens. the problem with this isnt necessarily apparent until u look at it within historical context, where queer people are repeatedly not allowed to be openly queer. these arent isolated incidents, but manifestations of the idea that queer people shouldnt ever be open about their sexuality. youve got to tackle the discomfort that people have with words like gay/lesbian/bi/etc

i think this particular character trope wouldnt bother me so much if it wasnt like… the only narrative ever present. time and time again, i have to see characters proclaim that they dont like labels while never once even hearing people breathe the word bisexual. if it existed alongside characters who were explicitly queer it would be less frustrating But its literally one of the few ways (semi positive attempts at least) queer characters are ever portrayed. this is particularly true for bisexual characters lmao like… yes…theres people who dont like labels…but theres also millions of bi people that just wanna see a fucking bi character Talk about being bi and all we ever get is a vague “i dont like labels” (that is often never explored further than that and treated as a throwaway line anyway). is creating characters who say that a genuine attempt to characterize someones struggles with labels or is it just a way to avoid saying the word Bisexual.

same with queer romance in media. its only ever Okay if u just hint at it- see dumbledore being gay. see- the korrasami thing (though i dont fault the writers for this bc they pushed hard for what they got, its issues with the network). why are queer people relegated to drawn out stares that May imply something while straight characters are allowed to get into explicit relationships. when u create ambiguous characters that May be interpreted as straight (even if youve really gotta stretch) ur prefer to maintain the negative “neutral” of the heteronormative status quo and allow homophobes to live with their views unchallenged more than u care about addressing queerness in characters. 

 its not a coincidence that we dont do this to straight romance or straight characters. this is particularly important for queer kids!! its good to see queer characters out there being openly queer. while me and u can often pick up on queer themes and narratives, a 8 year old is not going to get that. especially when theyve been conditioned to see straight romance as the only feasible choice. they wont realize the character youre writing is gay or bi or whatever Because they havent been exposed to the connotations we associate w certain phrases. its so important for queer kids to see queer characters Owning that theyre queer. its especially importantly to normalize words like gay or bi or pan. being gay is often Extremely hypersexualized (which is why so many people will tell u they dont care what u do in the bedroom bc they can only picture queerness is a sexual context) so when u Dont treat these words as things only adults can say, u help get rid of the stigma surrounding them. u help remove the idea that being queer is inappropriate for kids to hear about and that the only possible aspect to being queer is sexual. 

anyway this has been Quite the Ramble but the point is that yes, we need to write more characters who are absolutely explicit about their sexuality and move away from the expectation that queer people need to create euphemisms to comfort homophobes desires to never hear about queerness.

[swipestream]

The Gift My Character Gave Me: Knowing Myself

Roleplaying can create empathy for others and provide the opportunity for self discovery.

Today’s post is a very personal one addressing self exploration through role playing. This is about a positive life change discovered through roleplay that I’d like to share.

One of the golden rules of great game groups is to encourage each person to bring their personality and unique ideas to the game. As a dominant player (who basically thought my ideas were the best) this was a hard lesson to learn but infinitely valuable to enhancing my enjoyment of games. Additionally, when I bring more of myself to my role I am more fulfilled by the experience. Through play, each person gets to highlight what is important to them and their character. In many ways, role playing can be a window to the soul.

Sometimes the things explored through roleplay and the lessons learned have ramifications that reach far out into a person’s life. Roleplaying, and my character Harrison in particular, helped me reach a literally life changing revelation.

Recognizing the Gift.

There are numerous skills I have refined through roleplay: speaking up, long term planning, problem solving, thinking outside the box. All of those are great, but that’s not why I’m writing this post. It’s self-discovery time.

At the beginning of 2018 I played in a Tales from the Loop game as Harrison, a 14 year old trouble maker, who I played only a half dozen times. He was a boy becoming a man who was struggling to find his place in the world. I wrote more than 100 pages of fiction and backstory about him. That amount of devotion to a character had never happened before and I realized I had to understand what was going on. Why did I *need* Harrison so much? Harrison was the tipping point in a major self-revelation that literally changed my life.

In role playing games I play as a fictionalized version of myself, sometimes my idealized best self, sometimes leaning deeply into my flaws and touching on the mixture of hope and tragedy that is the human condition. My characters have been tall, short, caucasian, people of color, human, daemon hosts, fat, thin, straight, gay, bisexual, happy, lonely, rich, starving, religious, agnostic, and many other things. But my favorite characters have shared one trait since I started playing at 6 years old, they’ve been male.

What I’m here to say is: it wasn’t just my characters who were always male. It was me. Hi, I’m Wen and I am a transgender man.

Why Tell the Gnome Stew Audience?

Role playing has been the place I have been my fullest self for the last three decades. I can walk up to any game table, introduce my character and have them accepted for who they are without question. I was accepted as *who I was* without question. That is powerful beyond my ability to express. It vented steam I didn’t know was otherwise building up in my head. Roleplaying kept me safe and gave me the outlet I needed until I was ready to face myself.

For a long time I’ve said that the highest function of role playing is the ability to create empathy through game play. What I missed was that role playing can foster deep self-exploration, the ability to not just understand or empathize with others, but to know yourself. As such, role playing as a hobby and my characters, including Harrison, have always been extremely important to me. In some ways my characters were more “me” than I was allowing myself to be.

Many players don’t need roleplaying in the way I have. Not every role player will have a revelation like mine. However some of us do. I think this it is important to highlight because it is one of the reasons that a player’s agency in their character can be so extremely important. When you play, keep in mind that you never know how close a person’s character may be to their sense of self. Removing agency in the character may feel violating to the player in ways you don’t understand. Regardless of the circumstances, to keep your players trust, don’t compromise anyone’s agency in their character without their enthusiastic prior consent.

What Can We Do Next?

For readers wondering if there is anything you can do to make life better and easier for transgender people like me, the answer is an emphatic: Yes! I’m writing this section of the article with our cisgender audience in mind, but everyone is invited to read on. These are my personal opinions and learnings but I think they are a good starting place for being an informed friend and ally.

I’m still me. While your perception may have shifted, at my core I am still the same person, and that is true of all transgender people. If you were acquaintances or friends before, there is no reason that should change. As a gamer, if your friend brought a character of a different gender to the table, I imagine you’d say okay and move on with the game. Follow that same model in real life. There isn’t any reason people should act differently (read: uncomfortably) around one another. Focus on what you have in common, just like always, and you’ll be fine.

Honest communication and education demystifies being transgender. If you don’t know what I mean when I say “transgender” or “trans” read this (for a quick refresher on terms look here). Start by doing some reading and branch out from there. Ask questions in good faith and clearly express the desire to listen, learn, and understand individual people’s perspective.

Transitioning 101. There are several kinds of transition, not every transgender person transitions in every way. A transgender person’s identity is valid regardless of a person’s ability or desire to do any of these steps. Safety comes first and each kind of transition has its own risks and costs. Internalize this fact, accept it, and please don’t judge one another about it.

Social transition can involve several possible steps like coming out to friends, family, and coworkers; using a different name, pronouns, or titles; and updating gender expression through clothing, hairstyle, make up, etc.

Legal transition can include a name change and/or updating gender markers on legal paperwork like identification cards and passports. Rules typically require some form of “proof” which may take an extended period of time to obtain.

Medical transition can include hormone therapy, voice therapy, hair removal treatments, and surgeries. Rules require varying degrees of “proof” before medically transitioning, which may take months or years to obtain. If you aren’t in a relationship with someone where you already discuss deeply personal medical matters or each other’s genitals it isn’t appropriate to ask about medical transition. If someone wants to talk to you about it let them bring it up. That’s just common courtesy.

Pronouns: He/Him/His, She/Her/Hers, They/Them/Theirs, Name Only. Together we can normalize offering and asking for each other’s pronouns. If cisgender (non-transgender) people normalize this practice people who are trans (or non-binary or genderfluid) won’t effectively have to “out” ourselves every time we meet someone new.

Start by offering your own pronouns and then asking other people’s pronouns when you meet. Opening that door for people to walk through who may not identify exactly as they appear on the surface is one of the best gifts you can give.

Offering your pronouns in online spaces like on your social media pages, dating profiles, or email signatures, also normalizes the practice and makes written communication easier. If you can take 5 minutes to do that now, that would be awesome! (Ex. He/Him/His, She/Her/Hers, They/Them/Theirs)

When asking for someone’s pronouns you can leave out the word “preferred” as in “What are your preferred pronouns?” It’s extraneous. To me saying “preferred” implies that you are humoring me instead of simply respecting me. That’s not everyone’s take, but if someone wants to let you know that their pronouns are preferred, their response can simply be “My preferred pronouns are…”

Respect a person’s name and pronouns. If a person uses a new name, use that and don’t refer to them by their birth name (often called a “dead name”). When someone calls me “ma’am” I respond with “It’s sir, thank you.” Typically people take that in stride and carry on, you can do the same. If you slip up, correct yourself and move on. If you make a big deal about apologizing it is going to make everyone uncomfortable. If you are trying to get it right no harm, no foul, I forgive you, the end.

Help others to get it right. Be clear and be consistent, but don’t make a scene. I’m okay with folks correcting other people on my behalf, that takes some of the weight off my shoulders and spreads it around. It helps me to maintain my dignity and self-respect. Ask your friends if it is alright if you do this for them too and respect their decision.

Some people do not use pronouns. In that case specifically use their name or other descriptors, honoured guest, my friend, the author.

They/Them/Theirs can feel awkward in the singular form. The Associated Press Stylebook adopted it in 2017, we are living in the future, so this is your opportunity to be a strong ally and accept change. If needed, you can read more about it here.

Be a Visible Ally and Back it Up with Your Actions. Your words matter. Your actions matter. Your votes matter. Visibility matters (that’s why I wrote this post). It is important to nurture and embrace diversity in all spaces, including gaming spaces. Wear your rainbow colored shirts, pronoun pins, and Ally ribbons at conventions and game stores. I can’t tell you how happy I was that I could always pick at least one person in the crowd wherever I was at Gen Con 2018 with a rainbow shirt on. Listen and act in good faith. If you made it this far, you’ve already taken the first step, cheers! If someone tells you their experience and you aren’t transgender, listen, believe, and value their experience. Finally, human rights need to be inclusive of people of all genders and sexual identities. However those rights are called into question and potentially being eroded even as you read this. This is the time to unite, stand up for each other, and keep each other safe by working together as allies and friends.

Final Thoughts.

I’m fortunate to have the opportunity to share my experience, and I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this article. I cherish games and game players. I believe role playing as our common bond is a powerful force to unite people, I’ve always found my best friends through the hobby. I’ll always love and adore my characters, but now that I am myself all the time my characters have less of a burden on their imaginary shoulders. Roleplaying did its job shielding me for a long time, but it is a relief to be myself full time now.

It’s good to know you as myself beyond the game table. Wen

******* Special thanks to: Deanna, Chelsea, Ang, Senda, Rob, John, and Camdon for their advance feedback; to my game group Quincy, Derek, Jake, Senda, Camdon, and Brett; and to the creators of Tales from the Loop for unexpectedly laying the groundwork for my exploration.

The Gift My Character Gave Me: Knowing Myself published first on https://medium.com/@ReloadedPCGames